That's an idea that Shipwreckedcrew came up with. I was toying with the idea of writing something suggesting that the recent bombshell declassifications were tied to the coming election, but I couldn't think of the right way to put it. SWC found that way:
shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
I'm guessing -- and its all been speculation -- that the releases the past 3 days are an alternative to a "Durham Report." One guts the Flynn case, and another is huge new on the Page investigation. This is for electorate consumption.
They also suggest that Durham is probably wanting more time, and this is the alternative disclosure vehicle. Remember that Trump gave Barr ultimate DeClass authority, so the FBI cannot block DeClass any longer. So this stuff is coming out because Barr wants it out.
This makes sense to me. Barr and Durham surely understand that this investigation is one that the nation has a huge stake in. For the public to want to know what is going on is entirely reasonable, no matter what the legal difficulties with releasing information may be. You can't write a report that's just a few pages long, and once you start writing you're likely to also raise more questions in the minds of your readers. Of course, that's also true about declassifications, but a report is viewed as something that's supposed to be somehow complete in itself. Narrowly targeted declassifications may be a good alternative--one that shows that you're doing something, making progress, but doesn't give too much away.
"a report is viewed as something that's supposed to be somehow complete".
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
As long as this doesn't mean No More Indictments before the election.
None of the individuals we have insight into as potentially at risk of indictment are running for office. The time limit "rule" before elections is just guidance to avoid messing with a candidate for office. Comey, McCabe, Brenan, Strzok, Page, Weissmann, and so on are all not candidates for higher office and not part of any campaign staff. Other than the Dems not liking it, I don't see any conflict with releasing indictments whenever they are ready regardless of proximity to the election.
ReplyDeleteYes, the time limit "rule" did not stop the two Senate committees from releasing their reports on Hunter Biden's Chinese, Russian, and Ukrainian subterfuge which could directly be tied to his father. We all know most of the MSM will avoid covering anything detrimental to Biden and the Dems, just as they have ignored these two Senate reports - so it will be up to Trump to inform the American people; and the media cannot avoid Trump as they are like a moth to a flame.
DeleteDJL
Mark: I just posted this on facebook. Am I guilty of wishful thinking?:
ReplyDeleteensen has discovered damning evidence of a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY justifying INDICTMENTS of Obama, Biden, Brennan, Comey, Mueller, Weissman, McCabe, Struzck, the whole crowd. FBI agent who tried to figure out the 'basis of the investigation' was looking for PREDICATION: the factual basis for the reasonable suspicion that President Trump was COLLUDING with RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! He figured out that the compulsion to GET FLYNN was really a (neurotic) compulsion to GET TRUMP.
If this is in lieu of a Durham report, it's not going to have an effect that will satisfy. I mean, I did a google search yesterday afternoon. The only major media outlet that even mentioned subject matter in these releases was Politico with a factually wrong story and CBS, and that was through Catherine Heritage's Twitter feed.
ReplyDeleteAbsent indictments, this information will be sanitized as some rightwing news reports say...
I hope that I'm wrong.
Fox is a major media outlet.
DeleteEven most Fox shows say far more about covid, etc. than about these revelations.
DeleteGray's point remains: Absent indictments, this information will be sanitized/ ignored, such that most voters will know zip of importance about
this information.
Fox is doing a good job on this story, but I echo Gray and others who question the efficacy of releasing damaging information this way, if doing so is indeed a plan designed to alter thinking on the other side.
ReplyDeleteNo one on the other side is listening.
The progressive and liberal position, on any issue, from climate change to DJT, is faith-based. There is nothing rational about it. Arguing with them is pointless, as is exposing them to data that conflicts with their religion. They only see you as a heretic.
I don't know a single liberal, and liberals are by far the largest group in my area, who has modified his position an iota since the night Trump was elected.
Liberals weren't always this way (they were always leaning). If I had to point to a moment in time as a starting point for their irrationality, I'd point to Watergate.
That was when a number of them realized that with careful planning, you could destroy a conservative presidency. Killing Nixon was a dry run.
Bottom line? There's no talking to them. Evidence means nothing to a lefty. We either crush them at the polls, totally, or in the immortal words of Bette Davis, "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night."
"I don't know a single liberal... who has modified his position an iota...."
ReplyDeleteI do, starting w/ my daughter, and art least one person quite close to her.
While my influence likely has helped this process, so have events, e.g. lockdowns, backlash vs. cancel culture, riots, SpyGate.
And, the evolution of folks like Greenwald & Taibbi.
"a moment in time as a *starting* point for their irrationality, I'd point to *Watergate*."
I say, it got *much* worse with the Great Awokening/ BLM.
And, it got worse still, when RussiaGate drove the Dems/ MSM to betray their prior devotion to Peace, and opposition to the DS.
"liberals are by far the largest group in my area...."
Yeah, those living in a Cancel Culture area will be loathe to *publicly* defy the Party Line.
That's why it's nice to see stories, about some folks in such Blue areas as Northbrook, daring to publicly stick their heads into the guillotine slot.
"and art least one person quite close to her. "
DeleteI bet you meant to say *at* least.
Neither Greenwald nor Taibbi "evolved". Like Aaron Maté, they're unapologetic progressives, but they've been consistent in calling out the Russia collusion hoax for what it is, as well as the hacks and propagandists who promoted it and continue to do so.
DeleteI'm not a "fan" of Greenwald by any stretch (for reasons that have nothing to do with his opinions — with which I somewhat more than occasionally agree in general — or anything of any personal nature), but he, and Taibbi and Maté and Tracey et al, have principles and integrity that the #Resistance grifters, charlatans and village idiots don't.
183X
Thanx for seeing the typo about "art least".
DeleteOn Taibbi etc., I say "evolved", in the sense that they've taken steps toward wondering, if the Dems' pushing such BS bespeaks of greater problems on the Left, see e.g.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right .
Yes, yes, it is. The question is why. Successful prosecution?
ReplyDeleteNo prosecution period if Trump loses. It’s all political and always has been.
This plays’s into Sundance’s Eeyore take on the situation, which appears more correct than not.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/political-doesnt-report-ratcliffe-declassify-information-sen-ron-johnson-goes-off-news-durham-report-delayed-election-video/
From TexasDude’s Gateway Pundit link:
DeleteMaria Bartiromo opened up Sunday Morning Futures with this breaking news– US Attorney John Durham will NOT release his report before the 2020 election.
According to Bartiromo, a debate has begun within the Department of Justice as the timing of John Durham’s criminal investigation conclusion. Sources said it is now too close to the election and could be viewed as politically motivated
"Sources say..." = "Guilty and fearful individuals say..."
DeleteMaria Bartiromo, usually a pretty good source, reports on RedState that there will be no anything from Durham before the election. That doesn't surprise me, as the clock is getting too close to the election.
ReplyDeleteBut RedState raises the dread specter of no nothing, ever. Very interested in how you see this.
Myself, I find it hard to believe. I'm thinking that RedState is trying to goad someone into action.
Bonchie at RedState creating a furore:
ReplyDeleteHuge: No Durham Report, Indictments Coming per Sources
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/09/27/huge-no-durham-report-indictments-coming-per-sources/
This is not the kind of big news you want to get on an otherwise slow Sunday morning, but here it is. Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo is reporting this morning that there will be no Durham interim report or indictments coming before the election. By the wording, she may actually be saying there’s no report coming at all.
If true, this is a travesty of justice of the highest order given what has transpired the last five years.
Not one solid source mentioned (and as good as she is, Maria can go rabid on some things). And who the heck is Bonchie?
Maybe Maria's source is Trey Gowdy?
DeleteI'm of the view that, while prosecution comes first, this case is too big and too important for the nation NOT to also issue a report that ties it together for all those people who can't be expected to comb through court documents trying to figure it all out.
Re: Maria's reporting:
DeleteComment:
1. Durham doesn't leak; so this isn't coming from team Durham.
2. if it's not from Team Durham, it's questionable whether the sources actually know what Durham is and is NOT doing.
I speculate this might be a "defensive" false leak -- by Dems and their Deep State allies in DOJ. The purpose of such a leak is to plant the idea in the publics' minds that it would be WRONG for Durham to bring indictments between now and election day in order to dissuade him from doing so.
The only indictments that require taking the election timing into account would be ones on candidates in the election and people close to campaigns, and that's DOJ guidance, not policy. There is no "60 day Rule."
So, as long as Durham isn't planning to indict Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, or some Senator or Congressman running for reelection, the whole thing is a read herring.
So, I'd be dubious about believing this based only on Maria B's anonymous sources.
This defensive strategy is very similar to Brennan's attorney claiming Durham told him Brennan isn't a target. For all we know, Brennan's attorney made it up out of whole cloth, hoping that if the public believes it, the public will be outraged if Durham suddenly indicts Brennan.
Such leaks are attempts to create "self-fulfilling prophecies" out of whole cloth.
I agree, fully, it’s too big, but make no mistake, with a Biden win, there is nothing
Delete- TexasDude
Count me in, boys…. I was appalled to see Maria biting on this one. And we have no credentials for Bonchie, who is just parroting Maria and seems to be just a contributor at RedState.
DeleteIt might be from someone frustrated with the slow pace. It might be from someone who wants it all be against Trump.
ReplyDeleteWho knows.
Thing is, it’s coming to ahead, one way or another.
What do people think about Iran Contra? The fact Col North eventually got his case overturned?
Seriously? Lincoln’s VP, Andrew Johnson, was impeached by the Republicans in Congress over purely political reasons. No crime occurred.
Johnson was vindicated long after the fact when the Tenure of Office Act was deemed unconstitutional in the 20th Century. So what? Deed was done.
NO!
It truly is not about justice, right or wrong, or even the law.
It’s about raw political power. Period. Full Stop.
Always has been, always will be.
- TexasDude
If there will be no indictments before the election, why is all this information coming out now?
ReplyDeleteI think there will be indictments before the election. At a minimum, Trump can use all these reports in his debates with Biden. After all, it's not just Trump making stuff up. Hard for the media to claim Trump is lying about them.