If you're John Durham and the timeline of your investigation just got expanded in this manner--probably on your own recommendation--who would you want to pull in front of the Grand Jury? My list starts this way, and just keeps expanding:
Rod RosensteinRobert "Bob" Mueller--The Third!
And, yes, there are plenty more. It might even include members of the Legislative Branch. Count on it--Barr has no love lost for them. It's pucker time in the Deep State.
ADDENDUM: A very important paragraph from the Fox article:
Durham, known as a "hard-charging, bulldog" prosecutor, according to a source, has been focusing on the use and assignments of FBI informants, as well as alleged improper issuance of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants.Durham was asked to help Barr to "ensure that intelligence collection activities by the U.S. government related to the Trump 2016 presidential campaign were lawful and appropriate."
What? You really thought the FISA stuff would be left entirely to Horowitz and Durham wouldn't be involved? Welcome to the real world.
Other observers were also quick to see the implications of this. Sundance, for example, is suggesting that Rosenstein could be an unindicted co-conspirator. This makes perfect sense to me:
The obvious stares us in the face. If Durham has indeed expanded his time-frame to looking at early 2017, he is looking at DOJ and FBI activity entirely under the authority of Rod Rosenstein.
It has always been suspicious that Robert Mueller met with President Trump in the Oval Office the day before he was officially appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate Trump.
Newly uncovered documents show that Mueller and Rosenstein had been privately communicating in the days before that meeting. They worked sedulously to keep it a secret. Trump had no idea that Mueller was already on board to serve as special counsel.
So, why was Mueller there in the Oval? Was it part of a scheme to furtively gather evidence that, as special counsel, he could then use against Trump? Did he lure the president into a conversation under false pretenses? The answer appears to be yes.
It seems increasingly clear that Trump was being set-up, and that Mueller was neither forthcoming nor honest during the meeting.
He deliberately concealed from the president that he was about to launch a damaging investigation that threatened Trump’s presidency. The duplicity was more than a sufficient basis to require that he disqualify himself from the special counsel position.
The president’s account of his meeting with Mueller was corroborated by his then-assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, who arranged it and was privy to its purpose and content. I questioned her about this. She confirmed to me that, without a doubt, Mueller had been there interviewing for the job of FBI director. Recently, multiple administration officials backed up this account to Fox News. Newly released records also substantiate it.