Well...

I'm sure by now everyone (with exceptions) has heard about the "command center" at the Willard Hotel...so the planning for the January 6 insurrection was coordinated months in advance of the actual incident. Now Salon is reporting that Jeannine Pirro coordinated the payments to Guilliani and Kerik for their advance payment of expenses at the hotel, including lodging, to the tune of $225,000, from the Trump campaign. And executive privilege does not apply to the former guy.

Trump's defense in jeopardy after Fox's Judge Jeanine arranged "command center" campaign payments

Executive privilege typically does not cover campaign activities

By BRETT BACHMAN
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 3, 2021 9:17PM (EDT)

https://www.salon.com/2021/11/03/defense-in-jeopardy-after-foxs-jeanine-arranged-command-center-campaign-payments/

************



************

Here's a link to reporting on the Wiillard Hotel:

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/inside-the-willard-hotel-on-january?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share

*************

Durham's latest indictment: More lines drawn to Clinton's campaign

"To my good friend ... A Great Democrat." Those words written to a Russian figure in Moscow, inside a copy of a Hillary Clinton autobiography, may be the defining line of special counsel John Durham's investigation. The message reportedly was written by Charles Dolan, a close Clinton adviser and campaign regular whom news reports identify as the mysterious "PR-Executive 1" in the latest Durham indictment, this time of Igor Danchenko.

Danchenko, 43, was a key figure in the compilation of the infamous Steele dossier that led to the now discredited investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential race. But Danchenko, a Russian emigre living in the U.S., seems unlikely to be the Durham investigation's apex defendant. In fact, Durham describes him at points more like a shill than a spy, an "investigator" who was fed what to report by Clinton operatives such as Dolan.

Durham is known as a methodical, apolitical and unrelenting prosecutor. Thus far, his work seems to betray a belief that the FBI got played by the Clinton campaign to investigate the Trump team. The question is whether Durham really wants to indict just the figurative tail if he can get the whole dog - a question that now may weigh heavily on a number of Washington figures, just as it did following Durham's indictment in September of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

Danchenko's indictment on five counts of lying to the FBI serves two obvious purposes. First, these counts - with a possible five years in prison on each - are enough to concentrate the mind of any defendant about possibly flipping for the prosecution. Second, indicting Danchenko "hoists the wretch" for potential targets to see and consider that there but for the grace of God - and Durham - go they.

The background details of Durham's three indictments so far have assembled an impressive list of "great Democrats" who contributed directly or indirectly to the creation of the Russia collusion scandal. Indeed, the collusion case increasingly is taking on a type of "Murder on the Orient Express" feel, in which all of the suspects may turn out to be culprits. While the statute of limitations may protect some, Durham has shown that he can use the crime of lying to federal investigators (18 U.S.C. 1001) as a handy alternative. Targets must admit to prior misconduct or face a new charge.

Thus, Durham clearly seems to be making a meticulous case that the Steele dossier was a political hit job orchestrated by Clinton operatives. His latest indictment connects Danchenko to several intriguing figures and groups that, in turn, relate to the Clinton campaign.

Former British spy Christopher Steele himself has been extensively interviewed by investigators over the years - a long record that comes with inherent risks of contradictions. Notably, Steele recently defended his dossier in a bizarre interview. While admitting that it might have been used by Russian intelligence for disinformation, he stood by the accounts of its most sensational details, such as former President Trump's "golden shower tape," despite Durham's findings to the contrary.

Dolan is the latest direct connection between the campaign and the infamous Steele dossier to surface in Durham's investigation. Dolan had close ties not only to the Clintons but to the Russians as well; he and the public relations firm where he worked had represented the Russian government and registered as foreign agents for Russia.

Durham alleges that it was Dolan, not Russian sources, who gave Danchenko key allegations to put into the Steele dossier, including some of its most salacious claims. Dolan is described as traveling to Moscow to meet with Russian officials who were paying his firm. The connection is notable because American intelligence believed that sources used in the dossier were, in fact, Russian agents and that the dossier may have been a vehicle for Russian intelligence to spread misinformation. However, Dolan reportedly admitted to "fabricating" facts given to Danchenko. Dolan's attorney now describes him as a "witness" in the investigation.

Danchenko worked for several years at the Brookings Institution, a leading liberal think tank in Washington, as an analyst in Russian and Eurasian affairs - and, as a result, Brookings features prominently in this latest indictment. Around 2010, another Brookings employee had introduced Danchenko to Steele, who subsequently retained him as a contract investigator.

Steele testified in London in a 2019 defamation suit that he had disclosed some of his dossier's details to Strobe Talbott, then the president of Brookings. Talbott had his own longstanding Clinton ties. Among those, he was an ambassador-at-large and a deputy secretary of state under President Clinton; when Hillary Clinton was secretary of State, Talbott was named chairman of the State Department's foreign affairs advisory board.

Then there is Hillary Clinton herself. Steele also has testified that it was his understanding that Clinton was aware of his work and the development of the dossier. Yet during the campaign and long afterward, Clinton never admitted that her campaign funded the dossier, despite media and congressional inquiries about that fact. No less an official than campaign chairman John Podesta denied any connection in testimony before Congress.

More importantly, before the Steele dossier was given to the FBI and the press, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Clinton's alleged "plan" to tie candidate Trump to Russia as "a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server."

Now, with Danchenko's indictment, Dolan's name has been added to a seemingly growing array of Clinton associates whom Durham has referenced in the development of the Russia collusion scandal.

Again, it is not known whether Durham has suspicions or evidence of criminal conduct against anyone else beyond Danchenko. But many other figures are at least likely to feature greatly in the conclusions of the special counsel's final investigative report if many of the details of the indictments to date are any indication.

One thing is clear, though: Too many "great Democrats" keep popping up in Durham's investigation.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/durhams-latest-indictment-more-lines-drawn-to-clintons-campaign/ar-AAQounh

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
District of Columbia

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, January 13, 2022

Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses related to U.S. Capitol Breach

Eight Others Facing Charges in Two Related Cases

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment yesterday, which was unsealed today, charging 11 defendants with seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, which disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

According to court documents, Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, 56, of Granbury, Texas, who is the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers; and Edward Vallejo, 63, of Phoenix, Arizona, are being charged for the first time in connection with events leading up to and including Jan. 6. Rhodes was arrested this morning in Little Elm, Texas, and Vallejo was arrested this morning in Phoenix.

In addition to Rhodes and Vallejo, those named in the indictment include nine previously charged defendants: Thomas Caldwell, 67, of Berryville, Virginia; Joseph Hackett, 51, of Sarasota, Florida; Kenneth Harrelson, 41, of Titusville, Florida; Joshua James, 34, of Arab, Alabama; Kelly Meggs, 52, of Dunnellon, Florida; Roberto Minuta, 37, of Prosper, Texas ; David Moerschel, 44, of Punta Gorda, Florida; Brian Ulrich, 44, of Guyton, Georgia, and Jessica Watkins, 39, of Woodstock, Ohio. In addition to the earlier charges filed against them, they now face additional counts for seditious conspiracy and other offenses.

Eight other individuals affiliated with the Oath Keepers, all previously charged in the investigation, remain as defendants in two related cases. All defendants – except Rhodes and Vallejo – previously were charged in a superseding indictment. The superseding indictment has now effectively been split into three parts: the 11-defendant seditious conspiracy case, a seven-defendant original case, and a third case against one of the previously charged defendants.

In one of the related cases, the original superseding indictment, charges remain pending against James Beeks, 49, of Orlando, Florida; Donovan Crowl, 51, of Cable, Ohio; William Isaacs, 22, of Kissimmee, Florida; Connie Meggs, 60, of Dunnellon, Florida; Sandra Parker, 63, of Morrow, Ohio; Bernie Parker, 71, of Morrow, Ohio, and Laura Steele, 53, of Thomasville, North Carolina. The other case charges Jonathan Walden, 57, of Birmingham, Alabama.

The three indictments collectively charge all 19 defendants with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. Eighteen of the 19 defendants – the exception is Walden – are charged with conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiring to prevent an officer of the United States from discharging a duty. Eleven of the 19 defendants are charged with seditious conspiracy. Some of the defendants are also facing other related charges.

As alleged in the indictments, the Oath Keepers are a large but loosely organized collection of individuals, some of whom are associated with militias. Though the Oath Keepers will accept anyone as members, they explicitly focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement, and first-responder personnel. Members and affiliates of the Oath Keepers were among the individuals and groups who forcibly entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The seditious conspiracy indictment alleges that, following the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election, Rhodes conspired with his co-defendants and others to oppose by force the execution of the laws governing the transfer of presidential power by Jan. 20, 2021. Beginning in late December 2020, via encrypted and private communications applications, Rhodes and various co-conspirators coordinated and planned to travel to Washington, D.C., on or around Jan. 6, 2021, the date of the certification of the electoral college vote, the indictment alleges. Rhodes and several co-conspirators made plans to bring weapons to the area to support the operation. The co-conspirators then traveled across the country to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area in early January 2021.

According to the seditious conspiracy indictment, the defendants conspired through a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members and affiliates to participate in the conspiracy; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons, and supplies – including knives, batons, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection, and radio equipment – to the Capitol grounds; breaching and attempting to take control of the Capitol grounds and building on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the electoral college vote; using force against law enforcement officers while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; continuing to plot, after Jan. 6, 2021, to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power, and using websites, social media, text messaging and encrypted messaging applications to communicate with co-conspirators and others.

On Jan. 6, 2021, a large crowd began to gather outside the Capitol perimeter as the Joint Session of Congress got under way at 1 p.m. Crowd members eventually forced their way through, up, and over U.S. Capitol Police barricades and advanced to the building’s exterior façade. Shortly after 2 p.m., crowd members forced entry into the Capitol by breaking windows, ramming open doors, and assaulting Capitol police and other law enforcement officers. At about this time, according to the indictment, Rhodes entered the restricted area of the Capitol grounds and directed his followers to meet him at the Capitol.

At approximately 2:30 p.m., as detailed in the indictment, Hackett, Harrelson, Meggs, Moerschel, and Watkins, and other Oath Keepers and affiliates – many wearing paramilitary clothing and patches with the Oath Keepers name, logo, and insignia – marched in a “stack” formation up the east steps of the Capitol, joined a mob, and made their way into the Capitol. Later, another group of Oath Keepers and associates, including James, Minuta, and Ulrich, formed a second “stack” and breached the Capitol grounds, marching from the west side to the east side of the Capitol building and up the east stairs and into the building.

While certain Oath Keepers members and affiliates breached the Capitol grounds and building, others remained stationed just outside of the city in quick reaction force (QRF) teams. According to the indictment, the QRF teams were prepared to rapidly transport firearms and other weapons into Washington, D.C., in support of operations aimed at using force to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power. The indictment alleges that the teams were coordinated, in part, by Caldwell and Vallejo.

The charge of seditious conspiracy carries a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

This case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section. Valuable assistance was provided by U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the Northern District of Texas and the District of Arizona.

The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office with valuable assistance provided by the FBI’s Dallas and Phoenix Field Offices. These charges are the result of significant cooperation between agents and staff across numerous FBI Field Offices, including those in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, Alabama and Georgia, among other locations.

In the one year since Jan. 6, more than 725 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including over 225 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing.

Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov.

An indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy

*************

https://www.scribd.com/document/554985416/US-v-Sussmann

Durham: DNC lawyer Marc Elias has given grand jury testimony

And - the criminal investigation of Sussmann is ongoing.

Today, Special Counsel John Durham provided a “discovery Update” to the court in the Michael Sussmann case. In this filing, available here, he disclosed that his team has obtained a tremendous amount of information ranging from a variety of sources – including Perkins Coie, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and former DNC/Clinton lawyer Mark Elias.

While Sussmann has been charged with giving false statements to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker regarding the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization hoax (background here), Durham notes that the “Government also maintains an active, ongoing criminal investigation of” Sussmann’s conduct.

Today, Special Counsel John Durham provided a “discovery Update” to the court in the Michael Sussmann case. In this filing, available here, he disclosed that his team has obtained a tremendous amount of information ranging from a variety of sources – including Perkins Coie, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, and former DNC/Clinton lawyer Mark Elias.

While Sussmann has been charged with giving false statements to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker regarding the Alfa Bank/Trump Organization hoax (background here), Durham notes that the “Government also maintains an active, ongoing criminal investigation of” Sussmann’s conduct.

In other words, Sussmann’s criminal conduct likely is not limited to false statements. There is more. If we are to make an educated guess, it may have to do with the conspiracy to accuse the Trump Organization of having secret back-channel communications with Alfa Bank. We discussed the potential for a conspiracy charge here.

Now, to the evidence. Durham and his team have secured grand jury testimony from the following individuals:

Former Perkins Coie partner, and DNC/Hillary Clinton lawyer Marc Elias.

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker

Current CIA employees

Durham and his team have completed interviews of the following individuals:

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker

More than 24 other current and former FBI employees.

Current and former employees of the CIA and DARPA.

12 Employees of the “internet companies” referenced in the Sussmann indictment.

The former chairman of DNC/Clinton law firm Perkins Coie.

A former employee of the Clinton campaign.

Current and former employees of Georgia Tech (involved in the Alfa Hoax).

An employee of “Tech Executive-1” – aka Rodney Joffe, a Sussmann client who assisted with the Alfa Bank hoax.

Still, there is more. Durham has obtained records/documents from the following entities:

The Hillary Clinton Campaign

Perkins Coie

Hillary for America

Fusion GPS

A PR Firm that advised Perkins Coie regarding public statements about Sussmann’s meeting with James Baker.

Phone logs for numerous current and former FBI employees.

“a classified memorandum and related reports of interviews pertaining to a criminal investigation previously conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding a potential leak of classified information”

He also has secured nearly 400 e-mails between the FBI and Perkins Coie from January 2016 through June 2017.

There is also a curious paragraph discussing the fact that Durham, in January 2022 - learned from the DOJ Inspector General that they possessed “two FBI cellphones of the former FBI General Counsel to whom the defendant made his alleged false statement, along with forensic reports analyzing those cellphones.” Durham’s team is going through those cell phones now to analyze their contents.

And there is still more to come, with Durham stating “the Government expects to receive additional information and documents in the coming weeks that may be relevant to the charged conduct.”

While we expected some grand jury testimony, the fact that Mark Elias, the DNC/Clinton lawyer, was before a grand jury is certainly newsworthy. It indicates Durham has used the “crime-fraud exception” to compel disclosure of information and to elicit testimony.

“Under the crime-fraud exception, communications are not privileged when the client consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud or crime.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 810 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). To meet this burden, Durham had to show two things:

That the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme.

That Durham demonstrated the attorney-client communications for which production is sought are sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the intended, or present, continuing illegality. Id.

All this leads us to believe that Durham is focused on something more substantial than the false Alfa Bank allegations - perhaps the inception of it all: the claim of Russian hacking. As we have said before, consider the possibility that evidence of “Russian hacking” was placed by the DNC, Perkins Coie, et al. for Crowdstrike to conveniently “find.”

JOHN DURHAM’S POLITICIZED INVESTIGATION — AND WILLIAM BARR’S ROLE IN IT

Shortly after Mueller wrapped up his Russia investigation, the attorney general announced a new inquiry — one that would examine the origins of Mueller’s investigation and would be led by federal prosecutor John Durham. Both Barr’s previous criticism of Mueller’s probe as well as his problematic public comments since announcing the new inquiry have raised serious concerns about transparency, misconduct, and the political motivations behind Durham’s investigation.

Last updated: January 20, 2021

Areas of Investigation: Trump Accountability
Status: Active

Even before he joined the Trump administration as attorney general, William Barr’s stance on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference was well-documented. In 2018, while a private citizen (who had also interviewed to be President Donald Trump’s personal attorney), Barr sent then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein a memo outlining his misgivings about the Mueller investigation. (According to documents obtained by American Oversight, Barr shared this memo with Rosenstein over text.)

When Mueller finished his investigation and issued a report detailing Russia’s efforts to aid Trump’s 2016 election chances, Barr wasted no time in submitting a distorted summary of Mueller’s findings and prompting the president to inaccurately declare that he had received “total exoneration.” A month later, Barr raised eyebrows when he stated during congressional testimony that “spying [on the Trump campaign] had occurred,” implying illegitimate actions on the part of the FBI. And a month after that, Barr announced that U.S. Attorney John Durham would be leading an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, which was criticized as a political effort to delegitimize Mueller’s findings.

American Oversight began looking into the Durham inquiry as part of our broader investigation into the politicization of the Justice Department. Our investigation has uncovered records showing multiple meetings between Barr and Durham around the time of the release of the Mueller report — including one just a day after Barr sent his summary to Congress. “The frequency of their face-to-face meetings during this critical time — while Mueller’s office wrapped up its work — raised questions for several former Justice Department lawyers,” wrote CNN in reporting on those records.

Additionally, the records obtained by American Oversight also reveal that Seth DuCharme, then a counselor to the attorney general, was also present at several of those meetings. DuCharme is now the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY), in Brooklyn, having swapped places with Richard Donoghue. While at EDNY, an office that has been investigating multiple cases involving Trump associates, Donoghue had been tasked by Barr with overseeing all Ukraine-related investigations.

Meanwhile, Barr’s public comments about the progress of Durham’s inquiry not only fly in the face of Justice Department policy disfavoring such statements; they also make the agency’s justification for withholding documents from public release — that they are exempt from disclosure because they relate to an “ongoing investigation” — seem hypocritical and potentially political. Barr’s July 2020 refusal to commit to waiting until after the presidential election to release the findings of Durham’s probe further deepens the tinge of politicization.

American Oversight is continuing to investigate Durham’s probe and to fight for the release of documents that can provide more information on how Durham’s work was shaped. Below is a timeline of related records we’ve obtained along with public news reports.

[...]

https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/john-durhams-politicized-investigation-and-william-barrs-role-in-it

***********

Lawfare:

[...]

Analysis

There were good reasons for a comprehensive inquiry into the criminal and counterintelligence investigations of the Trump campaign and the president himself. The investigation was unprecedented and controversial, even if justified. We know from Horowitz’s review that the investigators made many mistakes and that the standing Justice Department guidance on such matters was (according to Horowitz) imprecise, underdeveloped and procedurally inadequate. A comprehensive review was warranted not only for the American public to know what happened, but also as a basis for intelligent reform of FBI and Justice Department investigative processes going forward.

To say that a comprehensive investigation was warranted is not to say that the Barr/Durham investigation, as it has developed, was the right one, or has been conducted well. (Goldsmith early on took a hopeful view of the investigation that, for reasons explained below, has not been borne out by events.) Two large problems stand out from the lengthy recitation of reported facts recounted above.

1. Durham’s Competence

Durham is a seasoned and undoubtedly competent federal prosecutor who entered this investigation with bipartisan credibility. He has an unusually rich understanding of the intelligence community from his days investigating the CIA tapes destruction and elements of the CIA black site and interrogation program. And there are precedents for reviews of the type Durham initially undertook—for example, federal prosecutor Randy Bellows’ review of the mishandling of the Wen Ho Lee case. But fifteen months after Durham was appointed, it has become clear that he was not the right man for the investigation that developed.

Durham’s review began as an effort to understand what happened in the genesis and conduct of the Trump campaign investigation. There was no inkling at the outset that crimes had been committed; Durham’s initial probe was a “review” to gather and assess facts. This function could and perhaps should have been done by a congressional committee. In April 2020, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report that found that the intelligence community’s assessment of “unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election” was “coherent and well-constructed” and that “the Committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions.” This approach to the broader questions related to the Russia campaign investigation would have yielded more credible conclusions than Durham possibly could.

A more comprehensive investigation also would have been an appropriate task—at the core of their expertise and competence—for inspectors general. Inspectors general across the government could have reviewed and assessed Crossfire Hurricane, as Horowitz did for a slice of it. There is a precedent for this. Six inspectors general worked together to produce a government-wide assessment of the Bush administration’s Stellar Wind collection program. If the input of foreign governments became necessary, as Durham and Barr believed it did, that could have been arranged by the State Department or by the agency whose liaison agency’s information is sought (for example, by the director of national intelligence if information from foreign intelligence services is needed). And if evidence of crimes arose in such an investigation, it could have been referred to a prosecutor—again, as happened with Horowitz’s investigation.

An investigation by a prosecutor is especially inappropriate for what appears to be one large focus of Durham’s investigation: the nature and validity of the intelligence assessment that the Russian intervention in the 2016 election sought to aid Trump rather than merely sow confusion. Durham has experience examining the intelligence community. But he is neither personally nor institutionally expert in intelligence assessments or the intelligence assessment process, and a prosecutorial focus is not the right one to understand or second-guess the basis for the assessment. As former intelligence officials Robert Litt and John McLaughlin wrote in the Washington Post, "[i]f analysts fear they may come under criminal investigation for judgments the president does not like, our nation will be less safe."

One weakness with the inspector general approach is that former employees can cooperate voluntarily but cannot typically be coerced through legal process into cooperation. This is one reason a congressional process would have been better in theory to develop a “what happened” narrative and a list of “lessons learned.” But while this is a limitation in the inspector general approach, it does not justify a criminal prosecutor, in what is now a criminal investigation, poring over every decision, document, communication and the like that had any relationship to the Trump campaign investigation, the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian motives and the controversies related to the presidential transition.

To be sure, we do not know the scope of Durham’s criminal investigation or whether and how he is using coercive prosecutorial tools. The reporting suggests that the criminal side of the probe has been quiet. It remains unclear whether a grand jury has been convened or, if so, how it has been used. But as recently as May, Barr spoke about the department’s “concern over criminality” in connection with matters that Durham was investigating. Having a prosecutor under the rubric of a criminal investigation diving so deeply into these events for an ex post assessment is a menacing and invariably distorting approach.

It is also an approach that is not designed to produce legitimate outcomes. There are obvious dangers in one administration using the prosecutorial process to examine a counterintelligence and related investigation conducted by a prior administration. Those dangers were exacerbated enormously by the fact that the investigation from the outset focused on individuals and processes that the president had virulently and repeatedly criticized and insisted had engaged in criminal behavior. Durham began this process as a credible figure, even if one not fully qualified for the task as it developed. But his investigation was burdened at the outset with the appearance of using law enforcement tools to carry the president’s water and harass his enemies. And it grew much more heavily politicized due to the actions of the attorney general.

2. Barr’s Role

No contemporary attorney general has, like Barr in the Durham investigation, offered such extended, opinionated, factually unsupported and damning public commentary, naming names and drawing conclusions, about an ongoing investigation that is at least in part a criminal investigation.

Barr’s commentary on the Durham investigation violates several Justice Department rules and norms. The department’s media contacts policy, which applies to “all [Justice Department] personnel,” prohibits “respon[ses] to questions about the existence of an ongoing investigation or comment[s] on its nature or progress before charges are publicly filed.” None of the exceptions, such as for public safety, apply to the Durham investigation. Department regulations also prohibit information disclosure “relating to the circumstances of an … investigation [that] would be highly prejudicial or where the release thereof would serve no law enforcement function, such information should not be made public.” It is hard to see the law enforcement function of Barr’s public commentary.

Barr knows all this. He knows what he is doing is contrary to the rules and traditions of the Justice Department. He knows he is doing reputational harm to people nominally under investigation. He must know that the way he is comporting himself does damage to the department and will make whatever Durham finds more contestable than it otherwise would have been. In short, Barr has acted in ways that foreseeably politicize and damage the investigation that he initiated and has devoted so much time to. The question is: Why?

One possibility is that the evidence Durham has uncovered is objectively so damning that Barr’s commentary cannot delegitimize it. Perhaps, but we doubt it. No matter what problems Durham finds, assuming he finds some, they will be tainted due to the combined behavior of the president (who might not know better and who cannot control himself) and the attorney general (who does know better and can control himself but has chosen not to). If Barr and Durham have an October (or earlier) surprise, Barr’s actions now are diminishing its impact.

Another possibility is that Barr’s judgment is distorted by zeal. He has made clear that he thinks the people who investigated the Trump campaign and transition team were engaged in illegitimate efforts to reverse the outcome of the election. Perhaps he thinks that what happened was so bad, and that the department’s rules and processes were so abused, that he is justified in publicly damning and injuring the participants no matter what. Two wrongs make a right, perhaps, or the ends justify the means. Again, this logic makes little sense, for Barr is only hurting the case he is trying to build. And, if Trump loses in November, Barr is acting in ways that will invite an investigation of the Barr/Durham investigation of the Trump campaign investigation.

A third possibility is that Barr is an out and out partisan hack—a Sean Hannity equivalent operating from the Fifth Floor of the Justice Department to try to fire up the president’s base or give the president other short-term political advantages. This widely held view is difficult to square with Barr’s reputation for probity and establishment credentials, and with his recent description of the prosecution of Trump friend Roger Stone as “righteous,” but it is consistent with other aspects of his behavior and the Department’s (for example, the announcement of the Bash probe of the Flynn unmasking on the Hannity show).

When Durham announces the results of his investigation we will surely have a better sense about which (or which combination) of these three possibilities, or another one, is correct.

Editor's Note (July 10, 2020, 11:00 a.m.): This piece has been updated to note Durham's contacts with Department of Justice officials.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/durham-investigation-what-we-know-and-what-it-means

***************

The only reason for the continuation of the Durham "investigation" and the constant leaks to the media is to give plausible deniability to Trump, Barr, and the entire swamp commonly referred to as the trump administration.

It's warranted because a candidate for president hired a foriegn spy to gather Russian counterintelligence in an attempt to manipulate the US presidential election and then that misinformation was used to undermine the presidential term of a duly elected POTUS.

"It's warranted because a candidate for president hired a foriegn spy to gather Russian counterintelligence in an attempt to manipulate the US presidential election and then that misinformation was used to undermine the presidential term of a duly elected POTUS."

John Durham published an update on discovery today. OIG Horowitz is in possession of 2 James Baker phones that were never revealed or investigated.

.

Okay, we have officially reached the stage of lonesome pitifulness where a dude is just showing up posting dots to provoke abuse, because that -- even when it's generic cut'n'paste -- is apparently better than not being acknowledged at all.  "I irritate... therefore I am!"

 

In a world full of books and movies and people to talk to and dogs to pet and great things to do and so little time to devote to them, I can't imagine anyone ever having such a sad, pathetic existence that they'd spend their time trying to provoke responses by just being a spiteful pest.  People he doesn't even like are the center of this dude's world now, because, apparently, he has no one and nothing else.   Imagine a life where being generically responded to is of value!

And this isn't any lonely little adolescent, either -- this is a dude pushing 60.  I could maybe understand (and yet still pity) that kind of spitefulness in a junior high kid, but... sheeeeeeyit.  That is amazin'.   If being an irritant is that big a part of somebody's identity, they've got absolutely nothin' else going on.  

I think we have found, officially, the biggest loser in the entire fucking world.  I honestly don't know whether to laugh my ass off at this, or just feel depressed for him.  That's... that's just... wow.  WOW.

Now you think spamming is irritating? Lmao... you're a tool. Talk to the forum idiot who spams every single post I make. No contribution... no opinion... no discourse... just spam. Why don't you reel him in?

zsomething wrote:



Okay, we have officially reached the stage of lonesome pitifulness where a dude is just showing up posting dots to provoke abuse, because that -- even when it's generic cut'n'paste -- is apparently better than not being acknowledged at all.  "I irritate... therefore I am!"

 

In a world full of books and movies and people to talk to and dogs to pet and great things to do and so little time to devote to them, I can't imagine anyone ever having such a sad, pathetic existence that they'd spend their time trying to provoke responses by just being a spiteful pest.  People he doesn't even like are the center of this dude's world now, because, apparently, he has no one and nothing else.   Imagine a life where being generically responded to is of value!

And this isn't any lonely little adolescent, either -- this is a dude pushing 60.  I could maybe understand (and yet still pity) that kind of spitefulness in a junior high kid, but... sheeeeeeyit.  That is amazin'.   If being an irritant is that big a part of somebody's identity, they've got absolutely nothin' else going on.  

I think we have found, officially, the biggest loser in the entire fucking world.  I honestly don't know whether to laugh my ass off at this, or just feel depressed for him.  That's... that's just... wow.  WOW.

Yup. Word is tiny Dick turns sixty in September.  

.

.

.

.