Tuesday, May 14, 2019

UPDATED: Does John Durham Get A Second Shot At "Bob" Mueller?

Some people have wondered why Robert "Bob" Mueller seems reluctant to testify to Congress. I can't answer that for certain, but it's at least possible that the fact that Bill Barr has had John Durham on the Russia Hoax case "for weeks" has something to do with that.

Consider this:


Replying to @PoliticalShort 
Didn't Durham find FBI corruption in the whitey burger [sic] case under mueller?
8:33 PM - 13 May 2019

Or this:

Alan Dershowitz Rips Special Counsel Mueller as 'a Partisan and Zealot'
Ripping FBI special counsel Robert Mueller as a political "zealot," Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz reminded staunch Mueller supporters about the former FBI director's role in protecting "notorious mass murderer" Whitey Bulger as an FBI informant. 
"He's the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informer. Those of us in Boston don't have such a high regard for Mueller because we remember this story. The government had to pay out tens of millions of dollars because Whitey Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the mafia ...
"And that's regarded in Boston of one of the great scandals of modern judicial history. And Mueller was right at the center of it. So, he is not without criticism by people who know him in Boston."

Did Barr pick Durham because Durham may feel he has some unfinished business? Or is it just coincidence? Does it matter? Whatever--"Bob" may feel that speaking in public, especially under oath, may not be the wisest thing to do right now. At the least he'll want to be very careful.


Laura Jarrett

Some news - AG Barr working closely with CIA Director Haspel, ODNI Director Coats and FBI Director Wray on surveillance issues related to Trump campaign - suggesting broader interagency effort underway 
7:42 AM - 14 May 2019

Well, well! Imagine this! Maybe Mueller time will come at some point.

UPDATE 2: Via Zerohedge, an account that suggests that Durham had wanted to go after Mueller in those Boston days: Barr's Investigator John Durham Once Probed Mueller In A Shocking Case.

Robert Mueller was knee-deep in this scandal, along with Andrew Weissman and the agent sent to prison, but because Reno gave him very limited authority, Durham was not able to prosecute Mueller, who was not in the FBI at the time.


  1. If the only thing that happens re Mueller is broader public exposure of his contemptible prosecutorial history, that alone will be no small victory for the Republic.

    Also, FWIW, the number of my @provoter twitter followers asymptotically approaches zero. Still, I started tweeting your stuff out anyway, if for posterity's sake if nothing else. At least the grandkids will know where I stood through this pivotal chapter of history ;^>

    1. LOL! I'll admit I had to look up "asymptotically". Tx.

  2. A subpoena from the Senate would be nice. I think that Graham has indicated that he is not going to pursue this.

    It probably doesn't matter at this point.

  3. I hope that you can calm my fears. Today I read an article (I don't remember which website) that talked about IG "taint." I.e., if employees had to talk to the IG as a condition of continued employment, that could limit their testimony's admissibility in court.

    The commenter mentioned the need for "taint teams" to establish a firewall to make sure the guilty don't go unpunished.

    I'm going to guess that a sharp and intelligent man like Bill Barr is aware of this. Nevertheless, I found this article disconcerting.

    1. Joe, that's a very good point, and one that's little understood by the general public. There are a number of things to keep in mind.

      First: This concern only applies to compelled testimony--when an employee is told they must answer IG questions or be fired. However ...

      Second: This only becomes problematic if the government tries to use the testimony as direct evidence against the employee. If it's used as evidence against another employee, my understanding is that that isn't a problem. Also, compelled testimony that's untruthful can lead to a false statement prosecution--again, my understanding.

      Third: The IG has very powerful tools for internal investigations--he doesn't just rely on interrogation. Recall how the IG recovered texts that were claimed to be lost--and he has other tools, too. E.G., an employee has little expectation of privacy re computer and phone use. However, all this is internal. No GJ subpoenas. But it can be provided to prosecutors.

      The article you may have read is by Sara Carter, and it's pretty good. There is SCOTUS law on this whole subject so, yes, not only is Barr very much aware of it, but Horowitz too is totally aware of possible pitfalls. Thus, Sara quotes somebody:

      “Horowitz is a smart guy, he’s been doing this for a long time and he’s been a prosecutor in cases involving official misconduct before. He was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York with corrupt DEA agents. Horowitz clearly understands these complications — he’s experienced with investigating corrupt agents.”

      Here's a FAQ that explains how IGs deal with these issues: Interrogating Government Employees.

      You should be able to rest easy about this.

    2. Thanks. And you're right. I did read it on Carter's website. She's another good one, as is Dan Bongino.

      I occasionally listen to Dan's podcast. I really gained a lot of respect when I watched him do a live video podcast. It didn't appear as though he was using a teleprompter.

      That man is sharp.

    3. Here's another link that explains IG investigations. If you read it closely you'll see that any employee whose testimony the IG wants and is willing to forgo prosecution (they want to use the testimony as evidence)--that employee is totally over a barrel.

  4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Alan Dershowitz and the vast majority of the Boston media such as the Bostonglobe never utterred a peep about Mueller's dishonorable behaviour until after Mueller's report came up empty.

    What I'm saying is that Dershowitz seems to have had a case of selective memory when that information would have helped blunt the PR campaign against Trump - which is all this is about. It's not legal, but political - and Dershowitz is nothing but a well-connected political animal with legal bonafides in the leftist academic community.

    After watching his slippery Communist cant for decades, I don't trust that snake one bit, and I would beseech people not to fall for it.

    1. "Correct me if I'm wrong ..."

      OK. Dershowitz has benn criticizing the campaign against Trump pretty much from the start. That article is from a year ago, long before the Mueller Dossier came out.

      I can't speak for his motives, nor do I feel a need to defend him as a person. I take truth wherever I find it. If he speaks the truth I'll cite him. Same goes for old time Clintonista Mark Penn, and super liberal Jonathan Turly. I take them one statement at a time.