Tuesday, February 2, 2021

UPDATED: Durham Not Looking To Prosecute High Level FBI Officials

That's the breaking story at Fox:

Durham probe focused on FBI, but prosecution of high-level officials like Comey 'unlikely': sources

My understanding of Bureaucratese yields this translation: "Unlikely" = Take it to the bank. And if you asked Bluto Barr he'd tell you the same.

Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation is largely focused on the activities of the FBI as he reviews the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, Fox News has learned, but sources familiar with the investigation said the prosecution of high-level FBI officials, like former Director James Comey, is "unlikely."


One source also told Fox News that Durham had been pursuing "new and credible leads" through the end of the Trump administration, though it is unclear, at this point, what those lines of inquiry entail.

Pursuing "new and credible leads"? Who's kidding whom? If Clinesmith had to be let go with a little tickle, lest he rat out "high Bureau officials," who seriously thinks Comey or McCabe will be squeezed, when what they have to say could lead to the highest levels of the Deep State? As Don Surber wrote not long ago:

We elected Donald Trump president and Washington went into open rebellion. Federal employees sabotaged his administration. The elitist insurrection shut down the economy, printed money to keep Wall Street's fortunes rising, and still had to rig the election to get him out.

Now the goal is to gaslight We The People into believing Trump was never a legit president (strip him of post-presidential perks, put him in front of a ridiculous post-constitutional kangaroo court) and banish him from public life.

But that won't happen. The Army of the Potomac in the Imperial City will serve as a constant reminder of what really went down. Just like Surber said.

UPDATE: I almost forgot--this is a logical place to add this reminder that the republic is no more:


  1. And exactly what is the Republican Party going to do about all this?

    Yep, thought so. Nothing.

    If someone from the Democrat Party put forth the agenda that Trump did in the campaign of 2015-2016, I would have voted for that person.

    Yet, no one from either party did except Trump.

    If you want to call me a cultist, be my guest, but it is his ideas that I support.

    Ideas that are now subversive and treasonous.

  2. Every day I am more and more convinced Sundance had this pegged correctly from the beginning.

    My own take, you can't prosecute DC's people, the history says they know too much about each other's dirt.

    Added with, Durham's history of prosecuting the prosecutors, it's a pretty good indicator of what was to be expected here. Toss in Barr, toss in Rosenstein's pre Barr involvement of Durham.

    Too many angles in the relationships and timelines, way too much history to ignore.

    1. Sundance had Durham and Barr on the nose. But wasn't he fooled a bit by Horowitz?

    2. I wouldn't go that far. I was certainly mistaken as to the extent of Durham and Barr's commitment. Whether they were complicit from the start is still, IMO, open to doubt. I don't think the Dem hatred for Barr was feigned--they certainly thought he was committed. As for Horowitz, there's a lot of misunderstanding re what an IG can actually do. However, there seems no doubt to me that Horowitz did pull some punches. I would defend sundance in that regard in that, despite pulling some punches, Horowitz did reveal so much that the shape of the plot was pretty clear.

  3. The Clinesmith dodge and the appointment of Strzok's wife foreshadowed this, didn't it? There will be no justice meted out to these thugs. It is becoming clearer now why the NG is being kept in DC as the decks are cleared for the Biden administration. And if you think there will be any serious inquiry into the Biden family's grifting, don't fool yourself.
    If true, however, then the creative writing and willful blindness of Durham we're about to witness should be worthy of an academy award - back when they actually were worth something...


  4. To add to the above, I think the IG's roll in the process anymore is one to cover and convert any crimes in advance of a criminal investigation.

    In laymen's terms the legal goes completely sideways in the sense that anything uncovered by an IG basically becomes a HR issue that is protected from prosecution because of the way it was obtained.

    At the same time, an IG only holds limited power in how deep they can dive. Unless someone is dumb enough to divulge direct information of wrong doing then you can't get very far. Even when they do, if it's 3rd party it's viewed as hearsay unless there is an admission by the other party.

    All of that is positioning for cover, every time you have some situation where something goes wrong they don't want out. You bring in the IG ahead of the criminal and in the end you get a nice report that means little "legally" or at least criminally. You get a few demotions, some wrist slapping and some transfers or maybe a retirement.

    I think Sundance saw that coming well in advance of Horowitz, Barr, Durham.

    IGs at best are politically appointed smoke screens to be used accordingly.

  5. I always thought nobody would be held responsible for the illegal spying during the 2016 election campaign and the genuine attempted coup afterwards. That being the case, the next best outcome would have been total and complete transparency. Declassify everything and offer pardons to everyone involved as long as they told the truth. The pardon power is not just designed to right injustice but also to heal the body politic in times of insurrection. Would the swamp/media have accepted a magnanimous gesture from Trump at face value? Probably not, but at least it would have set the historical record straight. Now everything is going to be memory-holed. I give Trump credit for a lot of things but he could never resist a confrontation, even when it didn't serve his interest. That's on him.