All indications are that John Durham is finished, and that recent public reporting about his investigation is accurate.
However, there is a developing sense that Merrick Garland has interfered to an unprecedented degree. This is something I highlighted weeks ago. In the NY Times article, the plain language told us Garland had interfered:
Durham wasn’t done in the spring. He definitely was not done in May, when he was still working to pierce through the frivolous privilege claims asserted over 1500 emails by Fusion GPS.
Most troubling, this was the same period that Rodney Joffe sent a letter to Garland demanding that Durham be fired. And Garland appears to have obliged, slapping the handcuffs on Durham. Something seems to have happened in the March-April timeframe.
Last night, @Shipwreckedcrew brought out the Special Counsel regulations, which tell us that if Garland has curbed Durham in any way, that has to be documented and explained to Congress.
I see that as a high likelihood. There are things we know about the DNC hack that blow up the entire narrative. We also know about the involvement of some of the same people implicated in fabricated Alfa Bank data, Joffe being one of them.
This week, thanks to Durham indicting Danchenko on weak charges, we learned that Danchenko was made a paid CHS to hide him from FOIA and Congress, he was paid $200,000 over 3 years as a CHS, he was instructed to destroy evidence on his phone, and that he was used to open other investigations while citing the same sub-sources he falsely attributed dossier claims to.
If Durham had just submitted a report, there is a certainty that all of this would’ve been redacted or excluded to protect “sources and methods.”
Now, this is going to shift to Congress. Unfortunately, I don’t see a big appetite to look at Russiagate. There are certain Senators and Congressman that certainly follow it closely, but there are many who ignore it all together or just head on FoxNews to get some publicity off it.
If Durham has been curtailed, are they going to step up and demand a new special prosecutor? Are they going to mount a serious investigation of their own? Has the GOP leadership planned for this? They need a prepared strategy from a group who understands the nuances of what has happened and people with backbone to defend it.
A challenge is going to be differentiating it from the clown show of the January 6 committee and to make Americans see it as a serious investigation because there are very serious questions that are likely to remain even after Durham finishes.
Bringing in outside parties to run a Congressional investigation would be ideal. If he is not in consideration as the next Special Prosecutor after Durham, former US Attorney Jeff Jensen would deserve top consideration.
Obama needs to be subpoenaed. He just does. He has information that we need to know, and if that is a non-starter for someone, they shouldn’t be involved with an investigation. At the same time, we don’t want to see someone blindly pounding the table about the deep state or “getting” Hillary Clinton with no sense of what has actually taken place or citing debunked theories from years ago because they haven’t been following this.
We can’t settle for a few people going on FoxNews with empty promises and then weakly crumbling when Garland fights back and left wing media compares us to Q-Anon.
I’m certainly going to be writing some letters and pleading our case. At the very least, I would hope they let Fool_Nelson, Walkafyre, me or others talk to the skeptical ones about what we know. We can produce a laundry list of open questions and eyebrow raising contradictions. There are a few pieces of information we haven’t divulged that would be useful, if those sections are redacted in Durham’s report.
Amid all the frustration, it isn’t time to talk away from this. It’s time for people to become more involved. We need more FOIA’s, more complaints to Congress, and more from our media to educate Americans on what happened.
Your point about the low-information self sabotage of the mission by those only nominally informed is a real problem. This morning Fox and Friends presents a Danchenko trial report package with a former federal prosecutor talking head, Francey Hakes, who described Iggy as “not even Russian.” I can so easily imagine someone like Marsha Blackburn blurting that nonsense out in the halls of Congress and being slammed. And who the hell is Francey Hakes and why is she even on my TV talking about the Iggy Trial? Sheesh.