{"id":23877,"date":"2020-08-07T17:14:55","date_gmt":"2020-08-07T21:14:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=23877"},"modified":"2020-08-07T17:18:45","modified_gmt":"2020-08-07T21:18:45","slug":"bombshells-from-special-investigator-durham-to-drop-between-now-and-labor-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=23877","title":{"rendered":"Bombshells from Special Investigator Durham to Drop Between Now and Labor Day"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ex-Colleagues See Durham Dropping Bombshells Before Labor Day<\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Front, John Durham and deputy Nora Dannehy, left, a Democrat. <\/em><\/h3>\n

By\u00a0Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations<\/a>
\nAugust 6, 2020<\/h3>\n

While much speculation inside the Beltway says U.S. Attorney John Durham will punt the results of his so-called Spygate investigation past the election to avoid charges of political interference, sources who have worked with Durham on past public corruption cases doubt he’ll bend to political pressure \u2014 and they expect him to drop bombshells before Labor Day.<\/p>\n

Durham\u2019s boss, Attorney General Bill Barr, also pushed back on the notion his hand-picked investigator would defer action. Under Democratic questioning on Capitol Hill last week, he refused to rule out a pre-election release.<\/p>\n

“Under oath, do you commit to not releasing any report by Mr. Durham before the November election?\u201d Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) asked Barr, citing longstanding Justice Department policy not to announce new developments in politically sensitive cases before an election.<\/p>\n

\u201cNo,\u201d the attorney general curtly replied.<\/p>\n

Justice Department\u00a0policy<\/a>\u00a0prohibits prosecutors from taking overt steps in politically charged cases typically within 60 days of an election. Accordingly, Durham would have to make a move by the Friday before Labor Day, or Sept. 4.<\/p>\n

Sidebar:\u00a0A Brief History of the ’60-Day Rule<\/a>\u00a0Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations<\/h3>\n

A low-profile prosecutor, Durham has kept a tight lid on his investigation into the origins of the specious Russiagate investigation of Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign, leading to rampant speculation about who he might prosecute and whether he would take action ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
Former Vice President Joe Biden: Durham’s probe
\ninvolves officials in\u00a0 two administrations, including
\nTrump’s presumptive Democratic opponent.
\n(AP Photo\/Andrew Harnik)<\/h5>\n<\/div>\n

That could well be of historic consequence, since his probe involves both the Trump administration and high-level officials in the\u00a0previous administration, including Trump’s presumptive Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Recently declassified FBI notes show Biden offered input into the investigation of Trump adviser Michael Flynn in early January 2017. Another declassified document reveals that Biden was among those who requested Flynn\u2019s identity be \u201cunmasked\u201d in foreign intelligence intercepts around that same time.<\/p>\n

If Durham announces criminal indictments or plea agreements involving former officials operating under the Obama-Biden administration, or\u00a0releases a report documenting widespread corruption, independent voters could sour on Biden and sympathize with Trump. \u00a0On the other hand, kicking the ball past\u00a0the election could dispirit Trump\u2019s base.<\/p>\n

\u201cI would find it hard to believe that he punts under any circumstances,\u201d said former assistant FBI director Chris Swecker, who knows Durham personally and has worked with the hard-nosed prosecutor on prior investigations.<\/p>\n

He pointed out that Durham would risk throwing away 16 months of investigative work if he delayed action beyond the election.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
Chris Swecker, ex-assistant FBI director:\u00a0\u201cNo
\nquestion that if Biden is elected, everything
\nDurham has done at that point will be canceled
\nout.\u201d<\/div>\n
Miller & Martin<\/a><\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s no question that if Biden is elected, everything Durham has done at that point will be canceled out,\u201d Swecker explained, adding that Biden would replace Barr and possibly even Durham. But by putting indictments and reports “into the public arena\u201d before the election, Durham would put a Biden administration in the position of either taking further action or closing down his probe.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would make it very difficult for Biden\u2019s appointees to undo his charges or bury the results of his probe,\u201d he said. \u201cJohn knows this and I fully expect he will take action before the election.\u201d<\/p>\n

Swecker, who\u2019s also a former prosecutor, anticipates Durham will deliver criminal charges, a written report or some combination of the two around the first week in September, if not sooner. \u201cHe must get his work done and out to the public by Labor Day,\u201d he said. “That way he avoids any accusations that he was trying to impact the election.\u201d<\/p>\n

Democracy 21, a liberal Washington watchdog group, has already cited the department policy in recent complaints to Barr demanding he suspend Durham’s investigation and place on hold any further actions or public comments about it until after the election.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf Barr allows indictments from the Durham investigation to come out during the presidential election campaign, he would be abandoning longstanding DOJ policy by misusing the department\u2019s prosecutorial power to support Trump’s reelection campaign,\u201d Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer\u00a0argued<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Swecker, who served 24 years with the FBI before retiring as assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, said he expects Durham to take more action \u201cthan just issuing a report\u201d similar to the 500-page document issued in December by Justice\u2019s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The IG made criminal referrals to Durham, including against an FBI attorney accused of altering evidence used to support a surveillance warrant on a former Trump adviser.<\/p>\n

\u201cI know John Durham. I worked under him on the Whitey Bulger case, which resulted in indictments of [corrupt FBI] agents,\u201d Swecker said. \u201cI don\u2019t think he\u2019s the least bit squeamish about bringing indictments if there is criminal exposure.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
John Brennan: Indictments of the CIA boss,
\nJames Comey and James Clapper are not expected.
\nSays ex-FBI official Swecker: \u201cIt\u2019s hard to prove
\ncriminal intent at their level, and unless there\u2019s
\na smoking gun, like an email or text, they\u2019ll
\nprobably get off with a damning report about
\ntheir activities.\u201d<\/div>\n
AP Photo\/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Swecker says he\u2019s confident Durham has uncovered crimes. \u201cHe’s onto something, I\u2019m convinced of it, otherwise he would have folded up his tent by now,\u201d he asserted in a RealClearInvestigations interview.<\/p>\n

The lack of media leaks coming from Durham’s office is another sign he is building a serious corruption case, Swecker said. Targets and witnesses have largely been kept in the dark about the scope and direction of his investigation, encouraging cooperation and possible plea deals. And the secrecy of grand jury proceedings has been fiercely protected.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m impressed with the discipline his team has shown,\u201d Swecker said. “There\u2019s been no leaks. The investigation has been very close-hold.\u201d<\/p>\n

Durham, a Republican, has been\u00a0known<\/a>\u00a0to threaten to polygraph investigators whenever he suspected a leak.<\/p>\n

His team is led by his deputy, Nora Dannehy, who specializes in the prosecution of complex white-collar and public corruption cases. A Democrat with a reputation for integrity, she left a high-paying corporate job to rejoin Durham\u2019s office in March 2019, the month after Barr was confirmed.<\/p>\n

Barr officially announced in May 2019 that he had put Durham in charge of looking into what he called the government’s \u201cspying” on the Trump campaign in 2016. Was that surveillance justified? Or was it done to smear Trump and sink his campaign — and when that failed, his presidency? Durham is exploring a host of other questions, including: What role did the CIA play? Did it monitor Trump advisers overseas? Were U.S. laws restricting spying on U.S. citizens broken? Did the spy agency slant U.S. intelligence on Russian election interference to justify the anti-Trump operation?<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a former CIA analyst, Barr recognized that this is the biggest thing since Watergate in terms of the abuse of the intelligence community,\u201d Swecker said. \u201cThis is a huge, huge intelligence scandal.”<\/p>\n

Swecker named former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith among officials most vulnerable to possible criminal charges in Durham\u2019s investigation of the investigators. Justice\u2019s watchdog made a criminal referral pertaining to his conduct \u2013 specifically, that Clinesmith forged an email in a way that hid the fact that former Trump adviser Carter Page had been a cooperating CIA source on Russia. The information, if disclosed to the FISA court, would have weakened the FBI\u2019s case that Page was a \u201cRussian agent.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Swecker does not expect Durham to indict former FBI Director James Comey, nor former CIA Director John Brennan or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. None of these central figures in the scandal has been interviewed by Durham\u2019s office, according to recent published\u00a0reports<\/a>, though Durham reportedly is working out details with Brennan\u2019s lawyer for a pending interview. Durham\u2019s investigators have already reviewed Brennan’s emails, call logs and other records.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s hard to prove criminal intent at their level, and unless there\u2019s a smoking gun, like an email or text, they\u2019ll probably get off with a damning report about their activities,\u201d Swecker said.<\/p>\n

Durham\u2019s portfolio also includes exploring the extent to which Ukraine played a role in the counterintelligence operation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Officials from Kiev, the Democratic National Committee and the Obama administration reportedly coordinated efforts to dig up dirt on Trump \u2013 and Biden was Obama\u2019s point man in Ukraine at the time.<\/p>\n

Though Biden may factor into Durham\u2019s probe, don\u2019t expect him to appear in any pre-election report. Another longtime Durham colleague noted that political candidates cannot be part of indictments or any report on investigative findings, according to Barr\u2019s own\u00a0rules<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe policy says you can\u2019t indict political candidates or use overt investigative methods targeting them in the weeks before an election,\u201d said the former federal prosecutor, who requested anonymity.<\/p>\n

Barr has publicly acknowledged the policy. \u201cThe idea is you don\u2019t go after candidates,\u201d he said in an April radio interview. \u201cYou don\u2019t\u00a0indict candidates or perhaps someone that\u2019s sufficiently close to a candidate within a certain number of days before an election.\u201d<\/p>\n

The former prosecutor, who\u2019s worked with Durham, said his old colleague may start revealing developments from his case weeks in advance of the 60-day cut-off, or ideally right after the political conventions. The GOP convention, which follows the Democrats\u2019 gathering, ends Aug. 27.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey are nervous about affecting the election, so timing is everything,\u201d he said. \u201cIt will be tricky.”<\/p>\n

At the same time, the former Justice official said Durham could exploit a loophole in the department rule, memorialized in\u00a0memos<\/a>\u00a0dating to 2008, that allows for action closer to the election. It\u00a0states<\/a>\u00a0that \u201claw enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges\u00a0for the purpose<\/em>\u00a0of affecting any election, or\u00a0for the purpose<\/em>\u00a0of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department\u2019s mission.\u201d (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

The operative phrase \u2013 \u201cfor the purpose of\u201d \u2013 leaves leeway for actions close to an election that aren\u2019t taken \u201cfor the purpose\u201d of affecting the election. In other words, Durham wouldn\u2019t necessarily have to lie low for the two months in the run-up to the election.<\/p>\n

Testing that loophole with an “October surprise\u201d would almost certainly send Democrats and the Washington media into high dudgeon.<\/p>\n

Some are skeptical Durham will deliver at all, regardless of the deadline, while others question his reputation as a fierce prosecutor. They point to his nearly three-year investigation of CIA officials who destroyed videos of terrorist detainees allegedly being \u201ctortured.\u201d Congress had sought the evidence, but Durham closed the case in 2012 without filing any criminal charges. And his final report about what he found remains classified. In a 2018 criminal case, moreover, he cleared Comey\u2019s general counsel, James Baker, of unauthorized leaks to the media.<\/p>\n

The Senate\u2019s top FBI watchdog, Chuck Grassley, has grown frustrated with Durham\u2019s lack of progress. \u201cDurham sh[ou]ld be producing some fruit of his labor,\u201d the Iowa senator groused in a recent tweet.<\/p>\n

Swecker attributes the sluggish pace of Durham\u2019s sprawling probe to the COVID-19 health scare, which has restricted travel and grand jury meetings in the D.C. area. Durham\u2019s team of investigators, who include retired FBI agents, has been operating out of his New Haven, Conn., offices. Besides Washington, they have taken trips abroad. Before the coronavirus outbreak, they interviewed authorities and other sources in Italy, Britain and Australia.<\/p>\n

In addition, Durham\u2019s agents have been slowed by an avalanche of subpoenaed electronic media, including emails, texts and direct messages, \u201cwhich are incredibly difficult and time-consuming to sort through,\u201d Swecker said. Such evidence is not limited to FBI, Justice and CIA officials. Durham also has reportedly obtained, for instance, data and meta-data contained on two BlackBerry cellphones used by Joseph Mifsud, a shadowy Maltese professor who some believe was used by the FBI to create a predicate to open the original case against the Trump campaign.<\/p>\n

During last week\u2019s House hearing, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., asked Barr if he would be able to “right this wrong\u201d against Trump before the election.<\/p>\n

\u201cI really can\u2019t predict that,\u201d the attorney general answered. “John Durham is looking at all these matters. COVID did delay that action for a while. But he’s working very diligently.\u201d<\/p>\n

Added Barr: “Justice is not something you can order up on a schedule like you’re ordering a pizza.\u201d<\/p>\n

McClintock warned Barr that if he is succeeded by a Biden appointee, Durham\u2019s investigation will simply go away.<\/p>\n

“I understand your concern,\u201d Barr sighed.<\/p>\n

___
\nhttps:\/\/www.realclearinvestigations.com\/articles\/2020\/08\/06\/ex-colleagues_see_durham_dropping_bombshells_before_labor_day_124753.html<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ex-Colleagues See Durham Dropping Bombshells Before Labor Day<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}