Gregg Jarrett: Your former colleague, Congressman Doug Collins, said today that he believes that the John Durham investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia hoax and the FISA abuse and so forth will lead to criminal charges. I personally doubt that very much.
Chaffetz: I think it’s warranted, based on the information we have already seen and already know. My greatest hope is attorney general Barr. He has been the ray of hope and light so far. I don’t believe director Wray, the FBI director, is a reformer. But between Durham and Barr it’s our best hope. But I don’t know. Let’s think about this, Greg. The inspector general made a cripple mall referral on the deputy assistant director and laid out the case, and it was rejected. The guy was taking money. He was going to dinners. He took sealed court documents and gave them to the media and they didn’t prosecute him. When you have a simple easy case like that and you don’t prosecute, what about something else?
Gregg Jarrett: Even the guy who literally altered documents [Kevin Clinesmith]. I bet you he’s going to skate, too. That’s my prediction. That’s how it’s going at the DOJ.
Jarrett is a smart lawyer, but "that's how it's going at the DoJ" isn't exactly a convincing reasoning process. He bets that a guy "who literally altered documents" will skate because a guy who lacked candor in an internal inquiry skated? The two cases seem distinguishable to me.
Twitter Russia Hoax star Undercover Huber surprised me a bit. He embedded Sara Carter talking with Hannity (audio--below--is terrible). Carter was stating that John Durham has been "very quiet" about whether a Grand Jury has even been convened--nobody in WDC has actual knowledge of this. She goes on to say that Durham likely will NOT issue a report--only indictments. This is coming from Doug Collins as well as from "sources within the community" who say that this is strictly a criminal probe. Undercover Huber takes issue with all of that:
The problem with this theory is it is basically impossible for Durham to “keep quiet” about a Grand Jury so that “people in DC” don’t know about it. If anyone connected to the main players was called to testify to that GJ
a) they ["people in DC"] would know about it and
b) would surely leak it.
Breaking: @SaraCarterDC on Hannity just said U.S Attorney John Durham has conviened a Grand Jury. Not going to issue a 'Report", Just 'INDICTMENTS'
￼Breaking: @SaraCarterDC on Hannity just said U.S Attorney John Durham has conviened a Grand Jury. Not going to issue a 'Report", Just 'INDICTMENTS' #Boom #Justice #StormisHere pic.twitter.com/DD8f515KI9— Ronnie V🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@ronnieverruto) February 28, 2020
It could be possible Durham is initially doing interviews outside of the GJ (many of Mueller’s interviews were not in the GJ for example), but ultimately they would have to end up there at some point.
Finally, regardless of indictments, Durham does need to issue a report, because the Mueller dossier (outside of certain verifiable facts) is trash, and even if there aren’t indictments (or less than people want) it is important to know for sure what actually happened. E.g:
—How/when did investigation(s) really get started?
—Who was Mifsud working for, if anyone?
—Why did FBI/DOJ keep misleading FISC & was this a coordinated effort, if so who?
—What was Mueller doing for two years?
—Who was leaking to media?
Answers still useful regardless.
I would say that, while the silence surrounding a Grand Jury is unusual, it's possible that it can be explained on two counts:
1. Much if not all of the information needed in this investigation has already been gathered without the need for a Grand Jury--by OIG, and by requests to other agencies. That's all intra-government stuff and doesn't require a Grand Jury subpoena. Witnesses can be required to remain silent. Certainly witnesses who have spoken to Durham have remained silent--I'm thinking of the non-US persons, who are certainly "main players."
2. The "main players" may not be subpoenaed until near the very end.
Sara Carter also notes how frustrated people are that they're not hearing anything. There are simply no leaks of substance. But that cuts both ways. OTOH, Undercover Huber says if there were a GJ that fact and some details would "surely" be leaked, yet OTOH if there were NO GJ--wouldn't that also be leaked?
As for Durham issuing a report "just because" people want to to know what actually happened, I'm skeptical. Barr's whole program is to restore normal procedures at DoJ. It is not a normal procedure for a prosecutor to issue a "report" if he doesn't prosecute. We've already seen that declinations in related matters have come with no explanations, and I see no reason to expect that to change going forward. On the other hand, if there are indictments, those would speak for themselves and FOIA requests and leaks could do the rest of the work at a later date. Hey, I'd love to see a report, but I'm not holding my breath.
I remain optimistic simply because:
1. AG Barr has already stated that there will be "significant developments" in late Spring or early Summer--Carter is doing no more than repeating what Barr has already said. Barr is a man of his word. Period. His actions with regard to Team Mueller were impressive.
2. Over the time that Durham has been working all indications have only been that his investigation and related investigations only expand. Bringing in additional US Attorneys is not a sign of an investigation that's winding down. The extensive travels, the reports of interviews with IC employees--especially at CIA, FBI, and ONA--all indicate an investigation that is going deep.
That is all.