by Shipwreckedcrew:
Yeah, I know I sound like a “know-it-all”, but this is one subject where it is necessary to know how the “sausage is made” in this kind of investigation to understand one possible reason that might explain Nora Dannehy’s resignation on Thursday night.
I have no information on the reasons for Dannehy’s departure, but I think the media is peddling what they HOPE the reason might be, not the actual reason itself.
I have a theory, and to understand the theory you need to first understand the significance of Dannehy having joined Durham in March 2019.
She joined DOJ in 1991, and she left DOJ in 2010 when she was selected to be Deputy Attorney General in Connecticut, the No. 2 job in that office.
But while she worked for Durham during the Bush 43 Administration, she worked with him on two high-level sensitive investigations based on Attorney General appointments, and when she was Acting US Attorney in Connecticut she was, herself, tapped to lead another high-level investigation of potential government misconduct.
John Durham was appointed in 2008 by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations.
In August 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Durham to lead the Justice Department’s investigation of the legality of CIA’s use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the torture of detainees. Durham’s mandate was to look at only those interrogations that had gone “beyond the officially sanctioned guidelines. ”
Dannehy was Acting US Attorney from 2008 to 2010, but even before that, she was tapped by Attorney General Mukasey in 2006 to investigate whether there was improper political motivation behind the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.
Among various reporting on her departure — and the rumors about why — it was reported that when she agreed to join the Durham “Review” as it was first called by Attorney General Barr in March 2019, she expected her service to last 6-12 months.
I noted on Twitter earlier that when she left DOJ in 2010, she was at the 19-year mark, which meant that her DOJ pension had not yet fully vested. By returning in March 2019, expecting to serve one year, she would reach the 20 year service time for full vesting of her pension benefits.
When Durham’s “Review” turned into a “criminal investigation”, given that it came on the heels of two IG Reports — Mid-Year Exam and Four FISAs — there is a critical feature of such an investigation that is little understood except by people with experience doing police misconduct and public corruption cases. This is because when done correctly, it is never a subject of further inquiry in any court case that follows so the public never hears about the matter or the people who were involved.
The left always looks for the “facts” that will make them feel best about being scum. Whatever the reason for her leaving, it is important that the information of the investigation is revealed well before the election.
She will probably write a book that will appear in October about her tenure with the Durham investigation. Generally I find when someone leaves a post a book is close behind.