Pages

Showing posts with label John Durham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Durham. Show all posts

Friday, August 13, 2021

A Durham Sighting?

The WSJ has an article out today that brings us--sort of--up to date on the Bull Durham investigation--or whatever it is he's doing--into the Russia Hoax. You can read the whole article here, courtesy of Mike Sylwester:


Durham Probe of What Sparked Russia Investigation Examines FBI Tipsters

The special counsel is expected to submit a final report in the coming months


Some explanation or translation is called for. "Russia Investigation" means "Crossfire Hurricane," which means the FBI's investigation of Donald Trump. "FBI Tipsters" means non-FBI persons who tried to instigate the FBI investigation of Trump--or, maybe, that means something like, people who provided the FBI with cover for their investigation. Hey, YMMV.

You can also read Techno Fog's commentary on this article:

Saturday, May 29, 2021

Bull Who?

A strong indicator emerges that the Bull Durham "investigation" into the Russia Hoax really was just Bull Sh*t. The Washington Times looked into the DoJ expenditures report for the fake investigation (released Friday), and came up with this:


Durham reportedly spent just $1.5m during first six months of Trump-Russia FBI probe

Figure is allegedly less than 25% of what Robert Mueller spent during similar timeframe.


Obviously Bluto Barr, disgraced former AG, understood what was going on--essentially nothing. He's not stupid. He knew then, he knows now. And yet has the effrontery to appear in public and comment on the state of the republic.

Per the Washington Times:

Sunday, May 23, 2021

UPDATED: George Papadoploulos Puts His Entire Reputation On The Line

Hey, he said so--and it's about John Durham. Papadopoulos says Durham is "very real", "incredibly real", and that Durham will expose a conspiracy in the Obama administration--based on what Durham has learned about Joseph Mifsud. Durham is currently just waiting for the right moment, perhaps after the audit in AZ is finished.

"I would actually put my entire reputation on the line saying this…"

"I’m on the record of saying I put my reputation on the line regarding Durham."

Read it all at TGP.

I'm still skeptical. There was plenty of time to produce the Mifsud evidence. But I'll happily eat crow if it turns out to be true.

UPDATE: I want to be clear that my skepticism, as expressed above, only runs to Papadopoulos' expectations regarding Durham's supposed investigation. As I said, there's been plenty of time for substantial results, so I'm not optimistic. However, none of that means that I'm skeptical regarding Papadopoulos' accounts of what happened to him in London (events surround Alexander Downer), in Rome (events surrounding Joseph Mifsud), in Israel, and upon his return to the US (his dealings with the FBI and Team Mueller). I find his accounts to be believable in their essential details--even if they may be self serving in some respects. The self serving respects are to be expected from most witnesses. On the other hand, his accounts of his adventures as a dupe in the Russia Hoax have never seriously been contested--in my opinion. Think of him what you will, but that's not really the point.


Thursday, May 13, 2021

Yay! Two Year Anniversary!

OK, excitement's over till next year. Go back to sleep.


 

Tuesday, April 13, 2021

In Bull Durham News

You've probably seen some of the stories that are floating around about Bull Durham. He's issuing subpoena's to Brookings--OMG! He's suspicious about the FBI's turning a blind eye to Chris Steele's use of Igor Danchenko as a primary source--Holy Cow!

If this excites you, I recommend Shipwreckedcrew's article:


Russian Hoax Prosecutor John Durham Issues Subpoena to Democrat Party Think Tank "Brookings Institute"


For my money, I'm still not impressed. SWC notes--way at the end of his article:


The continued use of information from Danchenko has always been a huge “red-flag” problem in my review of the FBI’s conduct.  There was simply too much information known to the FBI by December 2016 and January 2017 to press forward with the investigation while continuing to rely on earlier judgments that there was some substance to the Russia Hoax allegations.


Guess what? That information was also known to IG Michael Horowitz very early on in his investigation. Did Horowitz really just sit on that information until his report came out in December, 2019--no heads up to Bull Durham or Bluto Barr? I find that hard to believe. Anyway, what stood in the way of the incredibly competent and legendarily aggressive Dynamic Duo finding out that really basic information on their own? Nothing that I can think of. For example, couldn't they have asked Kevin Clinesmith about sources for the Dossier? Or any of several other FBI employees? And yet ...

Durham didn't issue a subpoena to Danchenko's employer, the Brookings Institute, until ... December 2020? A year after Horowitz's report came out? Puh-leeze! Look--if that had been my case I would have served Brookings with a subpoena for all documentation regarding Danchenko the day after I found out he was Steele's source--maybe even the same day. From where I'm sitting, none of this passes the sniff test. Were they investigating or were they not? What's so hard about issuing subpoenas for documents? Delays due to Covid? What BS. And now SWC thinks that Durham will try to flip Danchenko? Sounds to me that, now, in 2021, Durham is just getting started. So what was all the BS Barr was putting out about the supposed investigation?

ADDENDUM: Yeah, I can see this:



Also this:



It's just so hard for me to believe at this point that Durham is really trying to get the big story out. We all know what it was about, and it's taken Durham over a year to get just very, very basic records? C'mon, man!


Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Brian Auten And The Russia Hoax Big Picture

Paul Sperry--banned for life from Twitter--has a terrific investigative article today that goes into just about anything you'd like to know about current high level FBI analyst Brian Auten's involvement in the Russian Hoax. Sperry focuses most closely on Auten's involvement with the Steele Dossier:


Meet the Russiagate Prober Who Couldn't Verify Anything in the Steele Dossier Yet Said Nothing for Years

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations

March 30, 2021


I won't attempt to go through the wealth of detail that Sperry has on offer, which is greatly enhanced by his reference to Auten's testimony to Senate Judiciary staffers just last October. Here's a thumbnail summary of what Auten knew no later than January, 2017. In reading what follows, bear in mind that Auten was and is a Supervisory Intelligence Analyst, meaning, he has his own team of analysts at his beck and call:


1. Auten knew that the Steele "dossier" had been funded by the Hillary campaign.

2. Auten knew that nothing--repeat, NOTHING--in the Steele "dossier" that wasn't already public information had been verified or corroborated, despite the representations in that regard that were made to the FISA Court (FISC).

3. Not only that, but Auten knew that Steele was feeding the FBI "bullsh*t" in the "dossier"--supposed facts that Auten was able to debunk. That includes the claim that Michael Cohen had traveled to Prague.

4. Auten would also have been aware of the allegations being made against Carter Page--allegations that were a tissue of falsehoods. I can personally not imagine any scenario in which Auten would have been unaware of the falsity of those allegations--despite his claim that all Crossfire Hurricane investigations were justified. What would you expect him to say, with Carter Page suing?

5. Auten, of course, shared this information with the rest of the Crossfire Hurricane team. He also made no objections when this BS was knowingly submitted--repeatedly--to the FISC as if it were reliable information that satisfied the FISA requirement for probable cause.


But here's the thing. Very little if anything of this is news to investigators. Most of it was known and documented by Michael Horowitz in his FISA Report (Sperry goes into this). Much of it was probably also known by Congressional investigators, despite the best stonewalling efforts of Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray, as described by Kash Patel recently. That Auten hasn't been held to account is an obvious outrage, and so Sperry quotes a pair of former FBI agents:

Friday, March 26, 2021

Never Mind Waldo. Where's ...?

You have to admire Trump for saying this. Bluto Barr and Durham deserve it. What they did--or didn't do--is a disgrace and a slap in the face to all who love what America is supposed to stand for. The nation deserved better, and now deserves an apology and a full explanation. I don't care whether their apology comes before or after a collective apology from the SCOTUS. It seems there's no decency left:





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:




Friday, January 29, 2021

MULTIPLE UPDATES: The Deep State Is Laughing At America

Kevin Clinesmith got 12 months probation and 400 hours of "community service"--I think that means he has to work for Dem political campaigns for 400 hours. Or maybe donate the time to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you want a laugh--at your own expense and that of our country--read about it here.

The Dem who performed the ritual wrist-slap on Clinesmith--some guy called James Boasberg--teared up during the circus proceedings:


James Boasberg on Friday during Clinesmith's sentencing hearing said Clinesmith had suffered by losing his job and standing in the eye of a media hurricane. 

Boasberg gave him 12 months probation, 400 hours of community service, and no fine. 

Government prosecutors had been asking for Clinesmith to spend several months in jail. 


No word yet on whether Bluto Barr or Bullsh*t Durham think Boasberg "betrayed his office." Nor any word on whether Boasberg shed a tear for another guy who suffered real financial hardship and found himself in the eye of a true media hurricane--the like of which Clinesmith certainly never experienced but to which Clinesmith contributed by his felonious conduct--Carter Page.

Really--it's almost as if Boasberg wants us to believe that Clinesmith found himself out of his cushy federal job and in the eye of a "media hurricane" by some sort of weird accident or coincidence. He pled guilty to a felony, for goodness sake! And not just any felony, but a felony that strikes at the very heart of our rule of law, our electoral system, our constitutional right to be free of unwarranted surveillance. He did this, committed this felony, in an underhanded, dishonest way--forgery--as an officer of the court. 

Here's an alternative take on this travesty, reported by Paul Sperry--DC Fails To Disbar Anti-Trump FBI Lawyer Despite Guilty Plea:


As the U.S. government seeks prison time for a former FBI lawyer who admitted falsifying evidence to spy on a former Trump aide, the District of Columbia Bar association hasn’t begun an investigation to strip him of his law license, records show.

The defendant, Kevin Eugene Clinesmith, is still listed as an “active” attorney in “good standing” with the Democrat-controlled D.C. Bar, despite his having pleaded guilty more than five months ago to illegally altering a document used for authorization to electronically eavesdrop on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page as part of the FBI’s Russiagate probe.

A search of the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel database of "disciplinary proceedings" turns up no such proceedings against Clinesmith, even though his guilty plea was reported to the bar and the bar's board has received at least one formal complaint demanding his disbarment.

“The only appropriate sanction for committing a serious felony that also interfered with the proper administration of justice and constituted misrepresentation, fraud and moral turpitude is disbarment,” the National Legal and Policy Center said in a complaint it filed with the bar on Sept. 10. “Anything less would minimize the seriousness of the misconduct.”

The 38-year-old Clinesmith, a registered Democrat who sent anti-Trump rants to FBI colleagues after the Republican was elected in 2016, awaits sentencing on Friday.


I'm just shaking my head. But Bluto Barr should be hanging his.

UPDATE 1: Perfect:



UPDATE 2: From the belly of the beastly Estabishment:


FISA vs. Liberty

A surveillance judge clarifies that the FBI can falsify evidence without much fear of punishment.

The government employees of the “resistance” who never accepted Donald Trump as our president have finally performed a useful public service. Together with the judges of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, they have demonstrated for all Americans how easy it is to turn the spying tools of the federal government against domestic political opponents.

Even after the Obama-appointed inspector general of the Department of Justice found “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in a series of approved surveillance warrant applications to spy on Trump associate Carter Page—and even after a criminal conviction of an FBI attorney for doctoring an email to make it appear that the patriotic Mr. Page had never assisted U.S. intelligence—the FISA judges are still refusing to apply any significant punishment to the government officials who misled them.


UPDATE 3: I goofed up somehow (!). I thought that I had quoted Shipwreckedcrew's brief--so far--comment. I guess I was distracted juggling several things. Here's what he says that I found pertinent--Clinesmith never accepted responsibility for his criminal act, and Boasberg only gave him the wet noodle treatment anyway:


Prosecutors from Special Counsel John Durham’s office asked for a sentence of incarceration due to Clinesmith’s position of authority and responsibility as an FBI attorney who was obligated to provide accurate information, and the act of altering the email was inconsistent with that responsibility.  They argued further that by clinging to the excuse that he thought his alterations were consistent with the facts as he understood them, Clinesmith was not “accepting responsibility” for his criminal conduct as required by law to receive any leniency in his sentencing.


 There is simply no question but that Clinesmith committed a criminal act. And yet he continued with a totally BS claim that he "didn't mean to mislead". Nonsense. No sentient person accepts that.

UPDATE 4: From a WSJ editorial--what's not behind the paywall. Everyone is focused on the CIA email--understandably--but as I've been saying for lo these many months, it's just as big or bigger a deal that the FBI failed to disclose to the court that Page was a highly reliable FBI source until Spring 2016. Still, they're right--why should we take the FISC seriously? Or the FBI? Or DoJ? Or the Federal judiciary?


How can the American people take the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seriously when it doesn’t do so itself? That’s our view of Friday’s sentencing of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted to falsifying evidence submitted to the court for a warrant to spy on onetime Trump foreign-policy adviser Carter Page.

Federal Judge James Boasberg spared Mr. Clinesmith prison in favor of 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service. The judge said the evidence persuaded him that “Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true.”

In their brief, prosecutors made clear how unlikely this is. The evidence of Mr. Clinesmith’s animus toward Donald Trump is considerable. As for being an honest mistake, remember that Mr. Clinesmith changed an email confirming Mr. Page had been a CIA source to one that said the exact opposite, explicitly adding the words “not a source” before he forwarded it.

In their brief arguing for prison time, prosecutors contended that Mr. Clinesmith’s behavior “struck at the very core” of the candor the FISA court “fundamentally relies on” and “allowed the FBI to conduct surveillance on a U.S. citizen based on a FISA application that the Department of Justice later acknowledged lacked probable cause.” Prison time for Mr. Clinesmith, they said, was also necessary to “deter others from committing similar crimes.”

Friday’s sentencing will fuel cynicism about two-tiered justice. While George Papadopoulos served time in prison for making false statements to the FBI, and a federal judge refused to drop charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn after the Justice Department said they had no basis, a top law enforcement official who abused his police powers while operating in secrecy escapes with probation.


Monday, January 25, 2021

Paul Sperry: Whither John Durham?

Paul Sperry today has a very thorough review of where the John Durham investigation stands and where it may be headed. The article naturally focuses on Kevin Clinesmith, the disgraced former FBI lawyer who has pled guilty to making false statements to the FISA court (FISC) with regard to the final application for FISA coverage of Carter Page. Clinesmith is due to be sentenced later this week:


New Evidence Implicates FBI Higher-Ups in Dishonesty of Anti-Trump Lawyer


Sperry begins by noting that "defenders of the FBI" [sic] claim that Clinesmith's false statement--he altered a CIA document that was submitted to the FISC, causing the document to say the opposite of what it originally said--was a "lapse of judgment" or some such thing. Clinesmith himself has maintained that he never intended to mislead anyone. He'd also like to offer you a deal on a famous bridge in New York. 

However, says Sperry, there is new information that may portend a reinvigorated Durham investigation:

Monday, December 28, 2020

Kevin Clinesmith Sentencing Put Off Till January 29

Go figure. Excellent progress, that.




Tuesday, December 22, 2020

Not The Onion: Durham Making 'Good Progress'

Spoken with no discernible sense of irony:

 


Source tells Fox News that Durham is now 'frequently' working out of Washington, DC


Special counsel John Durham is "making good progress" in his investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, Attorney General William Barr said this week.

A source familiar with the investigation told Fox News that Durham, who is the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, is now "frequently" working out of Washington, D.C. Durham and some members of his team had been doing their work out of New Haven, Conn., over the summer.

 

They're working in DC now! That must mean they're getting close to their targets!


... "They’re making good progress now and I expect they will be able to finish their work."


I'll take Barr at his word, just as I take him at his word that Joe Biden isn't being investigated. Barr "expects" Durham will be able to finish his work--but that's not a guarantee. 


Monday, December 14, 2020

Now They Tell Us: Durham expanding team, making 'excellent progress'

 Fox has the details, such as they are, which I'll excerpt below:


Special Counsel John Durham expanding team, making 'excellent progress': source


I seem to recall--back in the heady days of Spring when I was a believer and an optimist--that we were reliably told that Durhams team was expanding by leaps and bounds, even exponentially if that were possible. Now, after having been promised May, June, July, August, as finish dates ... Durham is expanding his team and making 'excellent progress'; he remains 'full speed ahead'--full speed ahead being a totally relative concept. What's he been doing since Summer? Do Barr and Durham seriously not realize that announcements like this (or leaks, if you prefer) make them look like a pair of doofusses--that is, giving them every benefit of the doubt?

Again, we're told that Durham held off all Fall because he didn't want to appear 'political'. Does Durham--and/or Barr--seriously imagine that announcing that they're making 'excellent progress' at this late date will 1) persuade Dems to announce to their media surrogates to treat Durham's investigation as non-political or 2) prevent Durham from getting his ass fired the day after a Biden inauguration? 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I regard my own expectations as more reality based than that. Perhaps I'd need to be a prosecutor to buy into those expectations.

Moreover, the article tells us that Durham was authorized to make "interim reports as he deems appropriate in a form that will permit public dissemination.” Given that, what would have been the problem with issuing an interim report that exposed the political origins of the Russia Hoax and debunked the demonstrably false accusations being made against Trump? Would that have been too "political" for Durham's and Barr's finicky sensibilities--or would it have been doing simple justice to a falsely maligned man? Is "doing justice" a concept that Department of Justice lawyers have trouble wrapping their minds around?

This is very sad. Maybe there's a happy ending somewhere down the road. Right now I'm not seeing that.

Friday, December 4, 2020

SWC: Get Over It, Russia Hoax Conspiracy Theorists!

Shipwreckedcrew makes no pretense of hiding his disdain for those of us who believe--based on evidence--that candidate and then President Donald J. Trump was the victim of a "grand conspiracy":


Clinesmith Sentencing Statement Filed by Durham -- No Grand Conspiracy Revealed Regarding Clinesmith's Crime


The article curiously ignores key facts and shows little concern for the damage done to the credibility of the American federal justice system--which, he likes to remind us, he served for 22 years.

Here's how he begins:


This is sure to break the spirit of some, and reinforce the views of others that Attorney General Barr and now Special Counsel Durham are actively engaged in grand cover-up along with FBI Director Chris Wray regarding the FISA warrant obtained against Dr. Carter Page.


Why, one might ask, does SWC choose to frame the views of those who may disagree with him in such a harsh light? I have recently harshly criticized Barr regarding his actions, both as to his comments on the election as well as his curious appointment of John Durham as a Special Counsel. I haven't alleged a "grand cover-up"--more like a lack of courage or misguided concept of "healing wounds" by ignoring the cause of the wounds to the body politic. I'm sure there are many others who would share my point of view.

To SWC the "simple facts" are and have always been obvious: Clinesmith honestly, if mistakenly, believed that Trump was a "Russian operative":

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

UPDATED: SWC Weighs In On The Durham SC Appointment

I have to admit that I'm not too sanguine about the Durham Special Counsel appointment, to supposedly continue the Russia Hoax investigation that he managed not to complete up to the date of writing. Shipwreckedcrew takes a first look at the appointment:


Attorney General Barr Appoints John Durham as "Special Counsel" To Continue Investigation into Russia Hoax


Regular readers will be aware that I respect SWC's legal opinions. I state above that this is a "first look" because SWC recognizes in his article that this is a complicated situation. So let's take our own initial look.

Sunday, November 15, 2020

UPDATED: Durham Folding?

I've been criticized for presenting Tweets as news--Scytl and the "raid" in Germany is the example. That's not entirely fair. I've been clear that I can't confirm the purported facts, but that I regard the retweeters--such as Sidney Powell--to be credible.

Another credible tweeter is Sean Davis, who is reporting THIS:



I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying Sean Davis is credible. IF TRUE, then, yes, it's an absolute disgrace. In fact, I'd go further and state that it would mark the end of our republic if it holds. The end of a republic tends to be a messy thing with many contributing factors, but for the purposes of history it's nice to have some defining point to mark the end. This would work for me. It would mark a definable event flowing from the fake election of Biden, before any inauguration. A storm petrel, so to speak.

For the record, I still don't accept that AG Barr would be complicit in such a thing and expect that he would speak out, frankly, as has been his wont.

Monday, November 2, 2020

Tying Up Loose Russia Hoax Ends?

Lately, the last week or so, it has almost seemed as if the Russia Hoax could disappear from public view, what with all the election related news and--especially--the mind boggling revelations of the Biden Inc. scandal. Nevertheless, I remain confident that the Russia Hoax will come back to take center stage. In fact, some of the latest revelations suggest that Durham may be wrapping the case up, tying up some loose ends in preparation for indictments.

For example, we heard for months about Durham's focus on the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), the "assessment" that came out in early January, 2017, that set the stage for the continuation of the Russia Hoax and the justification for the Mueller Witchhunt. We've heard repeatedly that veteran CIA analysts believed that there was good reason to question the "assessment" that Putin was backing Trump over Hillary Clinton. And yet, we were told, CIA Director John Brennan ignored his own analysts to and combined with disgraced former FBI Director James Comey to frame a narrative that dominated much of President Trump's first term.

In an article yesterday that was co-authored by John Solomon and Lee Smith--two investigative journalists who have been on this case from the beginning--we learn interesting new information that sheds light on the origins of the entire Russia Hoax narrative. It also explains the reservations that the CIA analysts expressed. Perhaps most importantly, the new documentation shows that Mueller hid this information from public view, by excluding important documents in his possession from his enormous final dossier. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's evidence that Mueller perpetrated a fraud by hiding this evidence:

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Adam Housley On Biden Inc., Wray, Durham

I'm going to do something a bit different. Adam Housley--who claims to have multiple FBI sources able to tell him what's up with the Biden investigations and other matters--did a brief two-tweet thread. That led to quite a few comments, which Housley in turn responded to. Many of the comments mirror the impatience and other things I see in comments here, so Housley's thread may serve as a useful vehicle to address those matters.

What I'll do is first reproduce Hously's thread, but then I'll insert the comments and Housley's responses in Q & A format. I'll also insert some comments of my own. There may be some minor editing. As you'll see, Housley begins with the business about the FBI supposedly "dropping" any Biden Inc. investigation, but the discussion branches out a bit to Durham. So here we go:

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Manafort, Flynn--And A Dog That Hasn't Barked Yet

John Solomon continues to plow through the FBI spreadsheet that purports to fact check the Carter Page FISA application. He's come across an interesting detail:


Memo suggests FBI opened Manafort probe before Trump hired lobbyist but gave no warning

Some question why bureau didn't give Trump a defensive briefing in spring 2016.


A footnote (#332) appears to indicate (it's redacted) that the FBI opened an investigation on Manafort on January 13, 2016, but never provided the Trump campaign with a defensive briefing about Manafort. 

Solomon consulted Kevin Brock, a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI. Brock laid out the general principles behind providing defensive briefings:

Friday, October 16, 2020

How Big Could The Alfa Bank Hoax Turn Out To Be?

The last time we referenced the Alfa Bank hoax--Alfa Bank Redux--Starring John Durham!--I pointed out that the importance of the fact that Durham is pursuing the Alfa Bank Hoax angle with grand jury subpoenas lies in where that inquiry leads: Straight to the Clinton and, now, the Biden campaigns and organizations:


The Alfa Bank hoax "dossier" memo was written up by Christopher Steele at the express direction of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Sussmann then took the story directly to the FBI--to a friend of his, James Baker, who happened to be FBI General Counsel, i.e., Comey's top lawyer. Knowing Sussmann as he did, Baker also knew that this hoax story was coming straight from the Clinton campaign. Add that background to the involvement of Daniel Jones and Jake Sullivan in the Alfa Bank hoax (see above), along with the fact that James Baker has long been believed to be cooperating with Durham and we come to this: Durham's conspiracy net is attempting to catch some of the biggest fish in the Dem hierarchy, central figures in both the Clinton and now the Biden campaigns. 


The theory that draws these non-government actors into Durham's big picture conspiracy case is they provided false information--false statements, so think 1001--to the government, the FBI. The fact that the FBI would have known the information was false in beside the point. It was a form of information laundering--Hey, we received allegations, we investigated them: Wink, wink!