by Thomas Lifson
Durham has shown himself to be very methodical, and it may be that groundwork is being laid now for future indictments of government officials.
Sundance is raising the alarm that John Durham is not going to prosecute FBI and DOJ officials for their role in perpetrating the Russia Hoax. Opening arguments were presented Tuesday in the trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman for lying to then-FBI general counsel James Baker, claiming that he wasn't working for the campaign when he brought charges of ties between Donald Trump and Russia to the FBI.
John Durham enters the courthouse Monday (YouTube screen grab, cropped).
As noted by Charlie Savage, prosecutor Deborah Shaw, a member of the Durham team, delivered the opening remarks to frame the government position in the case.
The telling remarks came early: "Shaw addresses "the elephant in the room" – tells jury their feelings about Russia, Trump, Clinton can't play a role in the case. This is about "our FBI" which should not be used as a tool by anyone, Republicans or Democrats." In essence, prosecutor Shaw is telling the jury the FBI were duped into the Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation by outsiders connected to the Clinton campaign.
That's a critical baseline from the government we must understand and accept. That baseline now indicates that none of the DOJ and FBI operatives involved in the fraudulent scheme will be held accountable by the Durham team. "Our FBI should not be used as a tool by anyone," yet they were, so sayeth the United States Government.
There you have it folks. For those who tried to avoid the uncomfortable reality of the situation. The Durham prosecution has set down the cornerstone establishing the DOJ/FBI was used and tricked.
The prosecution cannot later turn toward DOJ and FBI officials who were victimized by the Clinton outside group, reverse the predicate motive of the prior trial, and then hold the DOJ and FBI legally accountable.
I get it that for Sussmann to be charged, he must have deceived the FBI, and there must have been consequences. In this case, the launching of the Mueller investigation, for instance. But does that preclude later charging FBI and DOJ officials? John Solomon of Just The News doesn't seem to think so. Mark Wauck of Meaning in History cites an interview Solomon did with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday:
SOLOMON: There's no doubt there is activity inside the grand jury right now aimed at looking at top-level officials of the FBI, and it's based on this evidence [of false representations made by the FBI to obtain the FISA warrants]. We all look at the fact that Danchenko was interviewed by the FBI on January 17, and disowned a lot of the things that were said to him. A lot of people said that should have been the point where the FBI stopped.
But Durham developed really significant evidence that red flags, the stop-now warning signs go all the way back to August when Bruce Orr, in 2016 came to the FBI and said Christopher Steele is dumping a dossier. He hates Trump. He's hired by Hillary Clinton and most of his information is raw and uncorroborated.
A month after the CIA sends a warning to the FBI, this is something John Ratcliffe declassified, saying Hillary Clinton is trying to play a dirty trick on Donald Trump to tie him to Russia to get out of her e-mail thing. All through the fall, they keep a spreadsheet of what's right and wrong of the Steele dossier. It's all wrong. Can't corroborate, they can't collaborate the information. The FBI never should have started the investigation and I think that's where John Durham's investigation is focused right now.
Based on his previous work, I doubt that Solomon is making up his information on the grand jury proceedings (which, after all, are secret). I certainly hope he is correct. And, while I am no lawyer, it seems to me that arguing to a jury that James Baker was lied to, and that lie resulted in defrauding the federal government, does not preclude arguing that other FBI officials like Peter Strzok and James Comey committed crimes.
So I am reserving judgment on Durham and the FBI and DOJ officials. He has shown himself to be very methodical, and it may be that groundwork is being laid now for future indictments of government officials.