AG Bill Barr Appoints U.S. Attorney John Durham to Review Origin of Russia Investigation…

Spread the love

Loading

Once again the New York Times is getting out ahead of the story to reveal Attorney General Bill Barr has instructed U.S. Attorney John Durham to review the origins of the 2016 DOJ and FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign. [Durham Background Here]

The appointment looks like a way to keep the sensitive inquiry within Barr’s control as opposed to appointing a special counsel.  John H Durham, the U.S. attorney from Connecticut, has handled previous investigations into the intelligence community.



WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates.

The department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators’ use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.

[…] Mr. Durham, who was nominated by Mr. Trump in 2017 and has been a Justice Department lawyer since 1982, has conducted special investigations under administrations of both parties. Attorney General Janet Reno asked Mr. Durham in 1999 to investigate the F.B.I.’s handling of a notorious informant: the organized crime leader James (Whitey) Bulger.

In 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey assigned Mr. Durham to investigate the C.I.A.’s destruction of videotapes in 2005 showing the torture of terrorism suspects. A year later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. expanded Mr. Durham’s mandate to also examine whether the agency broke any laws in its abuses of detainees in its custody.  (read more)

Again, cautious optimism this appointment is a step in the right direction.

We would be remiss if we didn’t note the prior DOJ head-fake when U.S. Attorney John Laush was assigned to review and deliver documents to congress.  That effort resulted in absolutely nothing; the documents were never produced; the redactions were never removed; and the corrupt institutional schemes were unfazed by Laush’s assignment.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
85 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@kitt:

Who could question the MSM? They normally got things before Obama did.
Duck season, rabbit season…..

By “tinfoil signals” do you mean that you don’t believe that there’s an investigation going on?

@Michael:

Why is your assumption that absolutely nobody who dislikes Trump is able to behave professionally? You appear to believe that literally every single person who is not a Trump fan will go to any lengths — including breaking the law — to undermine him.

I’m not saying that at all, but we (well, some of us) saw absolute proof of a cabal of Trump-haters/Hillary-lovers that expressed very specific views and intentions to do whatever was in their power to, first, keep Trump from winning the election then, when that failed, to make sure he never held power. Now, will you deny that?

Let is also be noted that these people were in the position to use quite a bit of power in order to achieve those ends. So, it wasn’t simply a case of some people with some opinions benignly going about their daily routines.

Certainly, then, the opposite must be true — that literally every single FBI employee who favors Trump will do anything, up to and including breaking the law, to protect him.

Though people who are not trying to turn this country in a due left direction mostly appear to have a greater respect for law, order, truth and the Constitution, based on your past support for those who followed their ideology rather than the law, why would this be a problem for you? Based on what you accepted from Mueller’s team and Comey’s actions, Barr should be asking Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Alex Jones who should be on the team, if not they themselves. He could even give them full access to NSA data, like Brennan did his “contractors”. According to the rules you leftists have been more than willing to accept, this would be absolutely fair and unobjectionable. Right?

@Deplorable Me:

Though people who are not trying to turn this country in a due left direction mostly appear to have a greater respect for law, order, truth and the Constitution

Hmmm.

based on your past support for those who followed their ideology rather than the law, why would this be a problem for you? Based on what you accepted from Mueller’s team and Comey’s actions

You’re the one who says that Mueller’s team was full of idealogues who were determined to set professionalism aside and undermine our democracy — not I. Again, it’s possible to hate Trump and still act like a professional. Remember that Strzok was removed from the investigation and then fired.

Barr should be asking Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Alex Jones who should be on the team, if not they themselves. He could even give them full access to NSA data, like Brennan did his “contractors”. According to the rules you leftists have been more than willing to accept, this would be absolutely fair and unobjectionable. Right?

Again, I’m not accepting your premise, so no.

@Michael:

Again, it’s possible to hate Trump and still act like a professional.

Are you trying to convince us that Mueller was unaware of the connections to the Hillary campaign of his second in command, Andrew Weissman?

Remember that Strzok was removed from the investigation and then fired.

Strzok was not removed until the text message between him and his paramour were revealed and even then, he was not fired for a year. And are you trying to convince us that such blatant hatred had by Strzok for Donald Trump was not obvious to those around him?

You must really think we are stupid.

@Deplorable Me, #35:

…faces Putin down in Venezuela…

Really? Trump, on his phone call with Vladimir Putin

Putin sent dozens of Russian troops and military advisers to Venezuela in March. They persuaded Nicolas Maduro not to bug out for Havana at the end of April, which would have been a quick and relatively peaceful end to the Maduro regime. His ride was waiting at the airport. Russia’s interference kept that from happening. That’s according to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

@retire05:

Are you trying to convince us that Mueller was unaware of the connections to the Hillary campaign of his second in command, Andrew Weissman?

Again, it’s possible to hate Trump and still act like a professional when you’re doing your job.

Strzok was not removed until the text message between him and his paramour were revealed and even then, he was not fired for a year. And are you trying to convince us that such blatant hatred had by Strzok for Donald Trump was not obvious to those around him?

Do you imagine that Mueller did not go through the work Strzok had done and made sure everyone’s nose was clean? I imagine he did. We can find out when he testifies.

You must really think we are stupid.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

@Michael:

You’re the one who says that Mueller’s team was full of idealogues who were determined to set professionalism aside and undermine our democracy — not I.

Well, that sort of makes my point, doesn’t it? Unless you can argue that stating they will make sure Trump is not President and their little contrived “investigation” is an “insurance policy” doesn’t represent a dangerous potential in people who are supposed to conduct an investigation based on evidence and facts. Isn’t that what Mueller selected for his team?

Again, I’m not accepting your premise, so no.

No, of course not, because you don’t have a problem with bias as long as it agrees with yours. However, the FACT is Mueller’s team was biased, exercised that bias and were fired because they could not overcome their bias.

@Greg: And what is Trump doing in regards to Venezuela? Backing down? Letting Putin talk him into “handling it” like Obama did in Syria? No, he is making it known that Russia, China, Cuba or Iran better not interfere. Trump is a leader and there is no way any intelligent person can draw the conclusion that Putin is controlling Trump in any way. Obama, on the other hand….

@Mihael:

Do you imagine that Mueller did not go through the work Strzok had done and made sure everyone’s nose was clean? I imagine he did.

You imagine? Seems you “imagine” a lot, just like Greggie Goebbels. Here’s my questions; did Mueller know that Strzok was engaged in an extra marital relationship with Page at the time he hired him? Did Strzok violate the “no fraternization” policy that was surely imposed? Did Mueller totally vet his team, including Weissman’s connection to the Hillary campaign and Strzok’s clandestine relationships?

What is amazing to me is how quickly the left can turn on someone. When Mueller was given the assignment, he was the left’s golden boy. When the report was finally released, he was evil incarnate to the left. Now, the same guy who investigated a dirty Mueller in Boston is going to investigate him again. Quid pro quo.

Further affiant sayeth naught.

That is the problem with you leftists. You think everyone is dumber than you until the cuffs go on. But please continue with that tactic. It makes it easier to regain the lower House in November 2020.

@Deplorable Me, #57:

No, he is making it known that Russia, China, Cuba or Iran better not interfere.

Russia already did interfere. Successfully. They kept Maduro in power.

@Greg: Maduro was already in power. We are supporting their Constitution.

@retire05:

the “no fraternization” policy that was surely imposed

Do you know for a fact, or are you imagining?

When the report was finally released, he was evil incarnate to the left.

I think that you’re projecting.

That is the problem with you leftists. You think everyone is dumber than you until the cuffs go on.

Please make sure that they’re pink and fur-lined.

@Deplorable Me:

the FACT is Mueller’s team was biased, exercised that bias and were fired because they could not overcome their bias

The whole team was not fired, and there’s no reason to speculate that their feelings about Trump affected the job the whole team did.

Strzok was fired. If you have any specific reason to question other specific people on the team, go ahead and make your case.

@Michael:

Do you know for a fact, or are you imagining?

Fact.

I think that you’re projecting.

No projection (I leave that to you left wingers). All you need to do is read the words of Democrats when Mueller was appointed. Frankly, I think Mueller has been a dirty cop since the days of the Boston FBI scandal.

Please make sure that they’re pink and fur-lined.

I assume you also want a pink tulle tutu to go along with the cuffs? You should look lovely in the gay parade.

@retire05:

Fact.

Imagining. That’s why you said “surely.”

I assume you also want a pink tulle tutu to go along with the cuffs? You should look lovely in the gay parade.

A tutu’s fine, but make it rainbow-colored. I wouldn’t have any problem marching in a gay pride parade. The opportunity’s never come up.

May 17, 2019 — Trump-whispering 101: Barr gives him 3rd Mueller investigation probe for his 2020 campaign

Why launch overlapping investigations before the first is done? Maybe to ensure that client from hell can spin a campaign narrative for 18 months.

Every lawyer has had to deal with difficult clients. There’s always someone who is demanding, wants unreasonable things, refuses to follow your advice and then blames you when things go wrong. Lawyers have to spend a lot of time and effort trying to keep these clients happy, or at least calm. By all accounts, Donald Trump has always been the client from hell, even before he was president.

Trump is not Attorney General William Barr’s client. The United States of America is his client. Nonetheless, in his short career in the Trump administration, Barr has gone out of his way to mollify the president on multiple occasions. A case in point is his appointment of John Durham, a longtime Department of Justice attorney and currently the chief federal prosecutor for Connecticut, to investigate the origins of what eventually became the Mueller investigation, and related FBI surveillance activities.

The first thing to keep in mind is that this is the third investigation into this “issue.” The first is being overseen by the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice. The OIG regularly investigates how DOJ business is being conducted. While it investigates allegations of wrongdoing, it also makes recommendations about how to improve processes and policies within the DOJ. It’s not at all uncommon for the OIG to do such an investigation in the aftermath of a particularly controversial or high-stakes probe. The office did one, for example, on the Clinton email investigation.

The second thing to remember is that these investigations are largely political theater. This is where I should explain to you exactly what the “issue” is that’s being investigated. I’m not going to do that because you can’t explain half-baked conspiracy theories and it’s dangerous to try. Instead, I’m going to hand you a few useful tools that will help you cut your way through the fog of hysteria being pushed by Trump and his surrogates.

Rule 1: Anytime someone feels the need to use the phrase “Hillary’s email” in connection with the origins of the Mueller investigation, you can stop listening. This is pure whataboutism in its most ridiculous form.

Rule 2: Follow the rule of “Yes. And so?” Assume, for the sake of argument, that the allegations being made were true. Would it invalidate any of the conclusions of the Mueller investigation? Special counsel Mueller uncovered a massive Russian attack on the 2016 elections. It was, without question, a deadly serious conspiracy, even if the Trump campaign wasn’t technically part of it. Mueller exposed this plot and filed over 30 criminal indictments regarding it. If he had not conducted his investigation, we wouldn’t know about any of it and we would be utterly defenseless when the Russians try to do it all again in 2020. Certainly, Trump would never have organized such a thorough investigation into Russia’s interference himself. He doesn’t even want to admit that it happened.

It’s the FBI’s job to investigate

However the FBI was alerted to Russia’s attack on our democracy, the agency was duty-bound to investigate when it caught wind of it. That’s not “spying,” as Barr called it, that’s a counterintelligence investigation. Once the FBI had uncovered evidence that the Russians were actively attempting to infiltrate an American presidential campaign, would you really expect them to look the other way?

Rule 3: No harm, no foul. The general complaint underlying all these theories seems to be that the FBI was out to “get” Trump and prevent him from becoming president, by fair means or foul. And yet, the FBI kept an incredibly tight lid on its investigation, and none of the extremely damaging allegations it had uncovered became public until after the election — and this includes the now-famous “Steele dossier.” It’s nonsense to suggest there was some enormous plot to dig up dirt on Trump but then only release that information after the election was over.

The Department of Justice and the FBI are fiercely dedicated to defending America and providing scrupulous and apolitical justice. That’s their job. As everyone working at those organizations is human, sometimes they make mistakes. And if they do, the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General will investigate and bring those mistakes to light. That’s their job.

But there is no point in launching multiple investigations into the same issue, and certainly not until the OIG has completed the one it is doing. Starting an investigation just for the purpose of suggesting that there’s something to investigate — which is what Barr has done — is a dangerous step toward turning the Department of Justice into a political tool. When it comes to Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Mueller investigation, where there’s smoke, there’s mirrors. Don’t fall for it.

@Greg: Getting a little concerned? Which one is going to spill their guts first; Comey or Brennan?

@Greg: If you know this or not there are Americans that are very interested in what was the origin of the turmoil, Was it agents gone rogue was it directed by the DNC, was it the former President that turned our IC into a political arm of the Democrat Socialist party. How did allied IC get dragged into the coup?
How vast is he Obama spying cabal? The one he found out about on the boob tube.Why was no one fired for spying on allied leaders?

@kitt, #67:

The origin is known already. The origin consisted of the very things Mueller investigated. As the article points out, when a number of those things were noted, it was the duty of the FBI to look into them. If it did not investigate such things, the nation would stand utterly defenseless against the sort of threats they might represent.

It would have been dereliction of duty not to investigate, but we have a Chief Executive who is claiming that doing so was traitorous. Ask yourself why.

@Greg:

Apparently, Chris Traux, an appellate lawyer in a state that allows graduates of internet law schools to take the Bar exam on line (that process is rife with cheating……doesn’t that build confidence in that state’s attorney, boys and girls?) has not got one damn bit of information, other than the Mueller report itself, to form his opinion. Also, he seems to think the Justice Department is incapable of walking and chewing gum.

Of course, no surprise that Greggie Goebbels is trying to divert attention from what Barr is digging into. Best way to do that? Disparage AG Barr.

Don’t you just love napalm in the morning?

@retire05, #69:

So Republicans for the Rule of Law is a leftist organization? They must be, since they’re critical of the man who stole their party.

Don’t you just love napalm in the morning?

No, I most definitely do not.

@Greg:

It would have been dereliction of duty not to investigate, but we have a Chief Executive who is claiming that doing so was traitorous. Ask yourself why.

If they had tried to verify the “evidence” they would not have began any investigation. THAT’S why they didn’t try to verify the “evidence”; the investigation was more politically useful.

@Greg:

So Republicans for the Rule of Law is a leftist organization?

No, moron. They are a “neverTrump” organization started by the head NeverTrumper, Bill Kristol.

Yeah, the same disgraced Bill Kristol.

May 18, 2019 — GOP lawmaker: Trump has engaged in multiple actions that ‘meet the threshold for impeachment’

A Michigan Republican and member of the House Freedom Caucus accused President Trump of “impeachable conduct” in a break with his party.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted Saturday that the president’s actions to potentially obstruct the now-shuttered special counsel investigation warrant impeachment by the House. He also accused Attorney General William Barr of “deliberately misrepresenting” Robert Mueller’s report of the investigation’s findings.

“Here are my principal conclusions: 1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report. 2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct. 3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances. 4. Few members of Congress have read the report,” Amash wrote Saturday afternoon.

“Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” the Michigan Republican continued. “Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.”

“In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings,” Amash wrote.

@Greg: Why are they just talking about it? If they think they have a legitimate case, DO IT.

Unless they know there is NOTHING in the Mueller report or anywhere else that justifies the investigations or impeachment.

@Greg: I think Amash should expound further on his statements, as soon as possible.
Perhaps with his deep religious held beliefs he prefers Pence.

@Deplorable Me, #74:

They’re probably waiting for more republicans to regain their sanity. It would require 17 republican votes in the Senate.

@Deplorable Me:

Unless they know there is NOTHING in the Mueller report or anywhere else that justifies the investigations or impeachment.

There are other reasons for not impeaching.

@Michael:

There are other reasons for not impeaching.

Yeah… there’s no REASON to impeach except Democrats fear the election.

That 17 out of 51 republican senators might regain their sanity does not seem beyond the realm of possibility. There have been times in the past when the majority of republican senators were sane.

@Greg: I’m sure they already have their sanity. That is why the Democrats hold no hope of shoving their partisan pity-party through the Senate without showing a cause. In the House they have the numbers to act WITHOUT cause. And, as we all know, they have no cause. Nor sanity.

@Deplorable Me:

Yeah… there’s no REASON to impeach except Democrats fear the election.

Everyone should fear the election. Trump’s a nightmare.

@Michael:

Everyone should fear the election. Trump’s a nightmare.

Yeah, there’s only so much economic expansion, good jobs, higher wages, more security that a person can take.

@Deplorable Me:

Yeah, there’s only so much economic expansion, good jobs, higher wages, more security that a person can take.

Those are not the only things going on during a Trump presidency.

@Michael: No, there’s sedition, illegal surveillance, false accusation, collusion and obstruction… by the Democrats… going on as well.

@Greg: How do you feel about the protection, by hardening, of the electrical grid?