UPDATED: Alfa Bank Redux--Starring John Durham!

H/T to commenter EZ, who pointed me to a tweet by Fool Nelson that pointed me to a New Yorker article by Dexter Filkins--who wrote the original article touting the short lived Alfa Bank - Trump Tower server conspiracy hoax. The article--The Contested Afterlife of the Trump-Alfa Bank Story--begins with a precis of the original hoax. I say "original" because Filkins is suggesting new conspiracy theories that embrace AG Barr and John Durham acting in concert with "the Russians". 

Here's the first paragraph, to remind you of the original hoax and to get us started:

Two years ago, I wrote about a mysterious series of computer contacts between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, one of the most powerful financial institutions in Russia. For four months, during the summer before the 2016 Presidential election, two servers registered to the bank repeatedly looked up the address of another server, maintained by a mass-marketing firm for the Trump Organization.

 

Remember, now? There's more to it, of course, but that'll do--my interest is in what the new developments (of which, more below) tell us about what John Durham is up to.

Since late summer the conservatives have been treated to regular explosions of anti-Barr and anti-Durham sentiment. You've seen the kind of stuff I'm talking about: They're Deep State operatives working to bury the evidence and get Trump defeated. People peddling this stuff point to Trump's recent tweet storm, right after returning to the White House after his brief stay chez Walter Reed, in which Trump vented about nobody being arrested, not enough documents being declassified, and et cetera. 

I was then and remain now convinced that that was basically political theater for the base. Nevertheless, people whom I previously mistook for serious commentators have taken this cry up in all seriousness. Just last night Fred Fleitz told Lou Dobbs that Durham should have wound up his investigation "a year ago." I guess that tells you all you need to know about what it takes to be a CIA analyst. Or, hey, an FBI analyst, too. I'm agnostic when it comes to analysts--no favorites.

I'm not just trying to beat my own drum, but ... I've been maintaining ever since Barr and Durham set out down this investigative road that they were two serious guys who intended to reach the end--not just offer up a couple of easy indictments. And I've also been maintaining that Barr and Durham are working strenuously to build a "big picture" conspiracy case--a theory of the case that would take in the entire Russia Hoax, not just a few nickel-dime false statement cases divorced from the big picture story. To do that takes time and resources and, unfortunately, is not certain of success. But it's a story that the American people need to have told to them in detail--so that it can't be written off as right wing conspiracy theory.

This is where Filkins article is leading us--confirmation that that's the road that Barr and Durham are on.

A Shipwrecked Theory Of Russia Hoax Prosecutions?

Today is all Bill Barr--and rightly so, after Barr's fine Hillsdale college address Former federal prosecutor Shipwreckedcrew has come away from Barr's address with a theory of what types of prosecutions we should expect to see as a result of John Durham's Russia Hoax investigation. SWC's theorizing comes at an opportune time, since some of us were discussing this very issue earlier today--but based on Senate actions with regard to their own investigations of the Russia Hoax.

Obviously, it's misguided to expect the results we hope for from Congress. Congress serves many governmental purposes, but prosecution isn't one of them. One hears--and reads in comments--that, for example, "McCabe will walk" because he hasn't been subpoenaed and hasn't agreed to testify voluntarily. I won't belabor the obvious--this type of thinking, even if it were to hit on correct results at times, is simply misguided. And especially so when dealing with a highly principled AG like Bill Barr.

Now, SWC has developed a theory of what to expect that runs basically like this. Barr will make the big decisions. Barr will not go for what I've called a "big picture conspiracy" prosecution but will instead opt for what might be called nickel-dime "false statement" type prosecutions.

SWC bases this theory on a brief passage from Barr's address. I will say this--as one who hopes for that big picture conspiracy prosecution. SWC may turn out to be right. If he is, I'll be disappointed because in my view it would do the country no service to pretend that something that actually did happen didn't. Here's SWC's reasoning:

Shipwreckedcrew Critiques John Solomon's Durham Rumor

Shipwreckedcrew doesn't believe Solomon's sources re Durham are that good. What's of more interest, he also explains what he expects to see--what I've been saying:

John Solomon's speculation doesn't impress me.  I think he has a couple good sources -- but I don't think he has any close to Durham's work.  

What I expect. ... 

If Durham is not yet done, but he has a broad conspiracy already well established, rather than have a few minor players indicted on minor crimes -- like Klinesmith on an obstruction count -- I think 

We are more likely to see a broad "narrative" laid out in the form of a lengthy "speaking indictment" that goes into great depth and detail with regard to the nature and overt acts over time of a wide-ranging conspiracy. 

What exactly he opts to characterize it as a "conspiracy" to do is a very intriguing question.  A "conspiracy" by definition is an agreement to commit one or more crimes.  Obstructing the lawful functions of gov't is what Mueller alleged in various places. 

I don't think the facts will take him much beyond that.

Then in response to this question:

Will venue almost certainly be DC (auto aquittal if so), or are there mechanisms to allow charges in different jurisdictions?

He adds:

That is the beauty of a conspiracy charge -- you can have venue in any district where an act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place.  My guess is that he'll try for EDVA in Alexandria.

The important thing to remember is that "an act in furtherance of the conspiracy" doesn't necessarily need to be a "standalone" crime in and of itself. It can be a facially perfectly legal act, but if it is done with intent to assist or "further" the conspiracy then it becomes a crime. Simple example, renting a car--in a different judicial district--with the knowledge that it will be used as a getaway car by others who may stage a "theft" of the car. Venue for the overall conspiracy could be in either district.

Nunes: Evidence Is There For Conspiracy Charges

Breitbart interviewed Devin Nunes on Sunday, and Nunes talked turkey on the type of charges he wants to see. I'm sure he's got an earful from people who are disgusted by Comey's juvenile--and probably very ill-advised--gloating at not being charged. Yet.

Here's a transcript of the most relevant parts of Nunes' remarks, including some commentary from Breitbart. I'm pleased that Nunes is thinking along the lines that I've outlined because, with all his dealings with people both in the Intel Community and at DoJ, Nunes must surely have a feel for where things are headed. That's grounds for optimism.

Nunes said in his exclusive interview on Breitbart News Sunday ... that despite the DOJ’s decision not to bring charges against Comey now, if the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut—who has been charged with investigating the origins of the Russia hoax investigation—follows a criminal referral made by House Intelligence Committee Republicans on the lines of a criminal conspiracy, Comey could face charges in that lane. 

“I always remind people that the Inspector General does not have a lot of power because they cannot—they don’t have subpoena power. They can only interview people who work for the actual agency, unless people will voluntarily be interviewed, which is not likely. So, I think the Inspector General did us a favor here because the House Intelligence Committee Republicans—we sent over referrals to the Department of Justice based on conspiracy. So now there is no question, one thing the Inspector General made clear by all the interviews and evidence that he gathered is that Comey is definitely part of the conspiracy.” 

Nunes continued by noting that Comey was not cooperative with congressional investigators digging into his leaking.

Conspiracy--The Lesson Of The Flynn Intel Group Case

Epoch Times had a smart article this morning by Petr Svab. For anyone who wants a brief and intelligible explanation of what the Flynn Intel Group case is actually about, Svab provides that. However, his article, Flynn Intel Group Case Highlights Mueller’s Lack of ‘Collusion’ Evidence, also explains the important role that charging a conspiracy can play and relates that to the Team Mueller inquisition into President Trump.

Svab's crucial point in this regard is that conspiracy can be charged even without a substantive crime actually being committed--as long as some step, some overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, is taken. One step will do. That means that only a circumstantial case need be made as to the underlying conspiracy and, crucially, the one step in furtherance of the conspiracy does not itself have to be a criminal act. Here's Svab's concise explanation of how significant Team Mueller's failure to allege a conspiracy on Trump's part was:

When the final report of then-special counsel Robert Mueller stated that it couldn’t establish that anyone from the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia, many Americans may have failed to realize how revealing a statement that was. 

The recent conviction of a former partner in the now-defunct consultancy firm of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, shows how easy it would have been for Mueller to bring charges even if he could piece together only a circumstantial case. 

Yet he didn’t.

The point is that if conspiracy is relatively easy to charge, given the right circumstances, Team Mueller's failure in that regard is a strong indication of just how clean Trump was.