Pages

Saturday, February 29, 2020

Defeatist--Or Do They Know Something?

It seems there's a fair amount of defeatism going around. I see it in the comments here, and some commentators are expressing it, too. For example, Fox legal analyst, Gregg Jarrett--whom I've quoted numerous times and who has written two books on the Russia Hoax--engaged in this colloquy with Jason Chaffetz while hosting the Lou Dobbs show:

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:

Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber
   
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.

Ronnie V
@ronnieverruto
Breaking: @SaraCarterDC on Hannity just said U.S Attorney John Durham has conviened a Grand Jury. Not going to issue a 'Report", Just 'INDICTMENTS'  

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.

21 comments:

  1. I think your take is correct for several reasons.

    First, I don't believe Gregg Jarret is "plugged in" better than current/former GOP Congressmen, like Collins and Chaffetz.

    There is also the possibility that Durham has a GJ running, but it could be somewhere other than DC. And, as you say, the GJ could be simply having documentary evidence presented, which would not bring in recognizable witnesses whose names that would tip-off the Courthouse leakers on the MSM payroll.

    Another possibility is Durham could be working a multi-phased strategy, in which he goes after some low level people first, gets convictions, then dangles a light sentence in return for cooperating and ratting out the bigger fish above them. Thus, we might not see big names indicted until after the election.

    Another possibility is he gets initial indictments that do not cover some of the really egregious stuff, but then goes back and gets, superseding indictments that incorporate the really bad stuff.

    And then there is also the possibility he's working something we have never even heard about. This was the thing that Hannity said his sources (as well as Sara Carter's) intimated a few weeks ago. Something "very big," but that we have never even heard about. John Solomon mentioned something that bears on this recently: he commented that we only know about 20% of the wrongdoing; the other 80% is stuff the public has not heard about yet.

    The other indicator is the increasing level of hysteria being exhibited by Comey, Brennan, Ms. Page, Strzok, etc., in recent weeks. Their comments do not betoken people who feel they are less likely to be prosecuted than before, but the exact opposite.

    This, along with the points you have already made, when taken as a whole, make me increasingly confident Barr and Durham will get to the bottom of this scandal, albeit slower than any of us may like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good summary. Everything we actually do know indicates this is a very serious investigation. The extreme silence is itself a likely indicator of how seriously it's being taken at DoJ.

      Delete
    2. The silence is also, I opine, a characteristic of handing off the investigation to an outside DC US attorney.

      Very savvy of Barr to understand that an in-house DOJ investigation would be conducted under the eyes and ears of leaking Deep State swamp dwellers.

      It is also why I find it a very encouraging sign that he recently appointed several other outside of DC US attorneys to "look into" a number of other matters, such as the Stone Prosecution, the Flynn Prosecution, and the vetting of Ukraine info, much of which comes from Rudy.

      I do not think those appointments were out of Barr's academic curiosity, any more than Durham's initial appointment was, before it morphed into a criminal investigation. And I suspect they will likewise end up as criminal investigations as well.

      Delete
  2. "Witnesses can be required to remain silent.... The 'main players' may not be subpoenaed, until near the very end."

    I'd not be shocked, if the main perps aren't subpoenaed at all, or until their defiance of orders to keep mum matters little.
    When perps are questioned, may not the specific questions they're asked risk tipping perps off (as to Durham's trial strategy), for them to leak anyway to the MSM, for it to then spin these things for the perps?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was of course referring to non-singing perps.
    Seeing as good lawyers don't ask questions, other than ones which they know the answer to, why ask anything of these perps, before charges are brought?

    ReplyDelete
  4. As you know, I've staked my faith in Barr, Durham, and by extension, Trump.

    But I do understand the discouragement. I get discouraged. Even when some criminal charges are not pursued, I have to remind myself to keep hoping that there are bigger charges coming soon.

    And, definitely the appearance of unequal justice weighs upon my mind. I'm hopeful for the day that Barr says "Yes, we know what happened to General Flynn, Carter Page, Papa D and others is a disgrace. But we had to let the process play out to catch the perpetrators."

    I was discouraged by Barr's comments about the Stone prosecution; by his calling it "a righteous prosecution." Because I believe that Stone did break the law by lying, but the Deep State was out to get Roger, as evidenced by Amy Hackson, excuse me, Jackson's comments, the CNN perp walk, etc.

    And I am breaking with Barr on the reauthorization negotiations that are ongoing on surveillance. While I do trust that Barr might not abuse the powers, he doesn't know everything that DOJ/FBI do. Also, he won't be around forever.

    We need justices and judges who adhere to the Bill or Rights. We need to stop criminalizing everything. And, I am opposed to making lynching a federal crime. We've got laws against murder and against violating civil rights. We've got too many laws.

    We need to return to being a moral people, reclaim our faith in God, cut down on the bureaucracy and institute term limits. We need civil servants, not kings.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My new-found skepticism comes from my dinner conversations with my Beijing-born girlfriend. She has first-hand insider experience with corrupt governments, and I don't. Until a week ago I regularly told her how the rule-of-law works in this country. "They're going to be arrested in a few months!".

    Then I realized I wasn't trying to convince her so much as trying to convince myself. She never argued with me. She just looked at me like I'm a hopeful but very naive child. I don't remember ever receiving such a look of pity.

    Then Barr's 2nd (or 3rd?) excellent speech describing the institutional decay of our country. And it dawned on me. Barr gave a clue with his "Trump makes it impossible for me to do my job" whining. Barr sounded like a defeated child when he said that.

    It is what it is. There's reality, and there's hope. And rarely do the two meet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I remain very optimistic. Some time ago we were informed that Durham’s “interviewers” were actually prosecutors.

    i cannot imagine why a grand jury would become fodder for the mainstream media’s nightly news. And I don’t believe a case involving this magnitude of conspiracy would be presented to a grand jury in piecemeal fashion.

    I pay little attention to anything remotely Eeyore coming from media personalities like Greg Jarrett and Sara Carter. Carter needs breaking news. Something new every night that she can drag to Hannity like a cat with its latest mouse. I am just as happy that they don’t really know what is going on. The absence of information and leaks is driving them crazy. Not my problem.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For the sake of the future of this nation, I desperately hope Barr understands that if violations of law were committed by anybody — A-N-Y-B-O-D-Y — involved in the Collusion fraud and attempts to overthrow a duly elected president, and the DOJ does not prosecute, the fuse of civil war will have been lit. How long is that fuse, none can say. But there will be no extinguishing it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Since, at this point, all any of us can do is guess, here's mine:

    There's no question that the Russia Hoax was a big deal. The only thing bigger would be the mining of the NSA database by outside (and unauthorized!) contractors beginning in 2012 or so. See: Judge Rosemary Collyer's 2017(?) report that was heavily redacted. There is also the "unmasking" requested by Samantha Power. Plus, a lot of other FISA corruption that Adm. Mike Rogers found and tried to shut down. He's reportedly Durham's new BFF.

    Durham may have realized even quicker than Barr that a GJ based in DC would leak like Adam Schiff. If he is using a Connecticut GJ, that solves the leaks and could also result in a non-DC venue.

    In the meantime, we wait.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As explained previously, members of the Obama Administration profited from selling out US national security technology for enormous kickbacks. The Clintons and Obama didn't become near billionaires by selling their good looks and making speeches. The magnitude of these criminal offenses dwarfs even a coup attempt against a duly elected president. Trump has already told everyone in a presser back in December that he "caught em." The dominoes have been falling ever since. The coming prosecutions will be epic, and Barr will make history.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Agree 100%, it gives me hope.

    >His actions with regard to Team Mueller were impressive.

    And the fact Trump wants to clean the system up, constitutionally. The John Ratcliffe renomination gives me hope.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't know if there are grand juries, or not, but wouldn't witnesses have a powerful reason to keep their mouths shut in the form of fear of being prosecuted for leaking? I have zero experience as a policeman, prosecutor or criminal, but imagine that any witnesses have spoken with investigators before being called into said (hypothetical) grand jury. Projecting how I'd act if I were a witness, I'd figure I was being closely watched and would toe the line. I'd know the gravity of this whole situation and, if I hadn't committed any crime and was merely a witness, I sure wouldn't want to start now. If I were one of the smaller fishes, I'd want to limit my liability and hope for a deal.

    So secrecy does seem possible. Or is my thinking too simplistic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rule 6E does not prevent a witness from disclosing his OWN testimony. It only make it a violation to disclose the testimony of others.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, EZ. I didn't know that.

      But even so, if it's a witness with exposure, wouldn't he want to keep his mouth shut for self-preservation?

      Delete
    3. EZ, the rule as written is not the whole story. It's very common for prosecutors and witnesses to enter into agreements re the disclosure--or non-disclosure--of GJ testimony. Obviously that would be especially common with cooperating witnesses, but for various reasons could also happen when a witness is not formally cooperating.

      Joe makes that point.

      Delete
  12. This 2005 article is probably as good as any on federal grand juries and how they work.

    "How Federal Grand Juries Work"

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4975837

    ReplyDelete