1) A nice succinct explanation of how the grand jury process works, and why it takes time;
2) A prosecutive theory that allows for the Big Picture conspiracy narrative that I've been hoping for--a theory that gets you past the nickel/dime false statement stuff. It's a conspiracy to defraud the federal government of the faithful services of the agencies involved--the FBI, CIA, maybe DoJ.
Wikipedia has a good discussion of Honest Services Fraud, under 18 USC 1346. Here is the statute:
"For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."
And here are some notable excerpts from Wikipedia that should give an idea of how useful this could be for Durham:
The statute has been applied by federal prosecutors in cases of public corruption
Since at least 1941, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, and prior to 1987, the courts had interpreted the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes as criminalizing not only schemes to defraud victims of money and property, but also schemes to defraud victims of intangible rights such as the "honest services" of a public official.
Honest services fraud is generally more easily proven in the public sphere than in the private, because honest services fraud by public officials can include most unethical conduct,
The statute grants jurisdiction to the federal government to prosecute local, state and federal officials. It is frequently used to fight public corruption because it is easier to prove than bribery or extortion.
Also, because the Hillary/Doj deal--outrageous deal--has been in the news again, I include that part of the discussion. And for those who want to read about that in more detail I'll provide a link. We've known what was involved for a long time, but now we have the documentation: ACLJ Obtains Obama DOJ’s Immunity Agreements with Hillary Clinton Lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to “Dispose” of Evidence and Refuse to Comply with Federal Law.
So here we go with Lou, Vicky, and Joe:
Dobbs: US Attorney John Durham--now conducting a criminal investigation, we understand. Not just a review. Victoria, this sounds like reason for hope--dare I hope?
Toensing: Yes! Please, please, hope! Listen, we've been telling you all along, Lou, that this was going to be a criminal investigation. But what Durham was doing ...
Dobbs: You didn't tell me it was gonna take this long, Victoria!
Toensing: Have some patience, Lou! Here's what he [Durham] had to do. He had to interview these witnesses. People who are cooperating witnesses should be interviewed beforehand. You don't wanna just throw someone in a grand jury cold turkey and start asking them questions. You wanna have, as a prosecutor, the whole range of information that they have. Maybe they say something and bring something up and there's more investigation that needs to be done before they come to the grand jury. So, unless someone who's being subpoenaed and is gonna take the Fifth, the prosecutor has already spent time to interview them.
Dobbs: So is this process, Joe, moving quickly, is it moving slowly, as it seems? Is there any reason for me for everyone watching and listening to you and Victoria to think that we're actually gonna see the scoundrels who made up the leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI are going to be held accountable?
diGenova: Yes, yes, and by the way--by any traditional standard this thing is moving with lightening speed. In a very short period of time John Durham has interviewed, I understand, DOZENS of potential witnesses and has moved to setting up a grand jury. So it’s going to happen. I will say this. I think people need to be reasonable in the expectation of potential criminal charges. This is a very difficult area of the law, to bring criminal charges where government officials are claiming that they acted in good faith. We may see some initial cases which are not brought, but eventually Durham is focused on a very large criminal conspiracy involving defrauding the United States government of the faithful service of these agencies. I think ultimately he will get to the point of bringing charges. It isn’t going to happen quickly. And there are going to be some instances where he isn’t going to have enough evidence to charge even some pretty big people initially. But some of these players will be involved in more than one series of criminal investigations. So if they get a pass in one instance, they may not get it in another. It's gonna be rough, it's gonna be difficult, but believe me--Bill Barr is not going to pass up the opportunity to do the right thing.
Toensing: And how long did it take Mueller to find nothing? Two and a half years.
Dobbs: Yeah. I can't even imagine making the comparison between Mueller's enterprise and that of John Durham or Bill Barr. But I do wanna ask you this, as we wrap it up. Is there any reason for us to expect an explanation, and a clear explanation, and a clear accounting for why Hillary Clinton could be exonerated by the FBI, and by the Special Counsel as well, even as we are watching evidence disappear and be disappeared, immunity given away like hotcakes to the staff of Hillary Clinton ...
Toensing: I predict that Hillary will be by the wayside and focus will be on what happened with the FISA authorization and the investigation of the Trump campaign. ...
diGenova: I have no idea if they're gonna give any further explanation of what happened to Hillary. I don't know how the IG could NOT do that, given the centrality of Comey's decision making to everything that followed. I think as a result of investigating all of this CIA, FBI, coverup stuff and the effort to frame President Trump I think they must explain how the Hillary exoneration fit in to that broad conspiracy to frame Donald Trump. So I think there will be an explanation of how the Hillary exoneration fed into a bigger conspiracy.
Toensing: But I think Lou still wants Hillary punished, right?
diGenova: That's never gonna happen. They're not gonna go back and try to indict her.