Thursday, August 6, 2020

About That Brennan Interview

Shipwreckedcrew has an opinion. You'll recall that I said that I can't see what benefit there would be for Brennan in such an interview. Shipwrecked goes into the typical situation and applies it to Brennan. Makes sense to me:

The news about a pending "Interview" with Brennan is typical of a situation where you "offer" a target the opportunity to "explain" some things.  Most of the time the defense lawyer doesn't agree to the interview.  But Brennan has an "appearance" problem if he was to refuse. 
I don't expect much will come of it, and nothing prevents his attorney from directing him to not answer certain questions posed. IMO, given that I think Brennan is the lead suspect at the "macro" level, I think this signals Durham is done. Brennan's info won't change anything.

In other words, the risks involved in such an interview (getting into deeper trouble) simply outweigh possible benefits (persuading the prosecutor to leave you alone) in most cases.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean Durham has decided to charge Brennan, although it certainly appears Shipwrecked leans in that direction. I would very much like to see that, too. However, it remains possible that an interview could be offered just to wrap things up. The bottom line is, we can't read too much into this situation.


  1. Mr, Wauck,

    This article might be of interest to you:

    1. Thanks. I read that last night. Perhaps I'll add something as an Update to this post.

    2. I scanned through the article this morning. When I read the paragraph about how disciplined Durham's investigation was regarding leaks it occurred to me the grand jury is supposedly impaneled in DC. Given the lengths that some of these TDS infected democrats have gone, it seemed amazing that not one grand juror has leaked anything to the press.


    3. I though the same thing. But then, clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing that is beyond politics might convince a juror on a grand jury to let things happen the way the law requires. I hope that's the case.

    4. Perhaps said TDS positive democrats are coming to grips with the reality that Barr/Durham believe the "law" part of law and order is an actual thing.