The Durham indictments prosecuting fake Trump 'collusion'

Politics & Elections
322

He can, the special counsel isn’t protected by anything really. All of the recent special counsels (like Mueller too), essentially serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General.

As part of the fallout of Watergate, legislation was passed that allowed for the appointment of “Independent Counsel”, an Independent Counsel could be requested by the House or Senate Judiciary Committees, but it was still up to the Attorney General to make the decision on whether or not to appoint one. Once a decision was made to appoint an Independent Counsel, a special three judge panel from the Courts of Appeals made the decision on which attorney to hire. The Independent Counsel could not be summarily dismissed, only specific wrongdoing or a few other things could justify early termination. However, the law allowing for Independent Counsels had a time limiter, it was extended a few times, but was allowed to expire in 1999–probably at least in part because the final Independent Counsel, Ken Starr, had attracted tremendous negative publicity due to perceptions of wasting time and money on the Clinton investigations.

Ever since then it’s just been “special counsels”, that AGs appoint (generally under political duress), they typically leave them alone. However, John Durham wasn’t even originally appointed as a special counsel, he was doing this investigation under orders of Bill Barr, for purely partisan reasons, as a U.S. Attorney. Near the end of Trump’s presidency he resigned as a U.S. Attorney but was appointed by Barr as a special counsel, specifically to continue his political investigation in a way Democrats would be loathe to dismiss.

I meant it when I said Durham had a respectable legal career, and for that alone I would not have been in favor of Garland summarily firing him day one, but now that it’s gone on for years, and all he has to show for it is a failed prosecution on a terribly stupid charge that almost certainly was never going to succeed, I sadly have to say Durham’s competence and integrity are in question as is the legitimacy of his behavior. That plus the unusual and partisan nature behind his appointment suggests to me Garland would be entirely correct to fire him, legally, ethically, politically et cetera.

323

Durham is a special counsel, not a special prosecutor. While this might seem like nitpicking, it truly isn’t in this situation. The current special counsel is basically an executive office creation with no particular legal rights.

Special Prosecutor raises the specter of Archibald Cox (who held that title), who was appointed to the position by AG Elliot Richardson to investigate Nixon, something Richardson explicitly promised the U.S. Senate he would do upon confirmation. It’s best not to associate those things with this.

324

That’s a fair correction, and somewhat mitigates what I said. I still think it sets a bad precedent. If Garland is to take any action, it should be requiring Durham to submit a road map for completing his work.

325

Durham has to provide a request for funding by July 1st. If he does so… and he very well may not… AG Garland can reject, or modify (lessen) the request.

Cite: 28 CFR § 600.8 - Notification and reports by the Special Counsel. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

326

I just reread this thread and there’s a ton of posts where obviously false right wing glurge is swallowed whole and regurgitated into this thread, and those would are hilarious and basically too easy to make fun of now.

My favorite post though is almost the opposite of that. @SpacemanSpiff_II, in an effort to support his misstatement of Sussmann’s position, quoted an MSNBC opinion piece and when challenged on it essentially says that MSNBC opinion pieces are unimpeachable sources of fact.

I’m sure he will be 100% consistent in this view down the road.

327

What’s the source for your first sentence, and what’s the meaning of “The FBI stated”?

AFAICT, various key FBI agents testified at the trial that the motivation of the person who presented the paper would make a difference to them.

Baker:

Key Witness in Durham Case Offers Detailed Testimony of 2016 Meeting - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

He would have “made a different assessment” if he had thought Mr. Sussmann had approached him on behalf of a client, particularly if that client were Mr. Trump’s political opponent, Mr. Baker said.

“It would have raised very serious questions,” Mr. Baker added, about “the credibility of the source.”

Hellman:

FBI agent in Sussman lawsuit says he dismissed Alpha-Bank’s claims within days (moeara.com)

He argued that “the motivation of whoever is giving me information is very important.”

Hellman said knowing the source of the information can influence his view of how “authentic” the data is and whether to rely on it. He added that political affiliation is another “data point that I will take into account to open a case.” And whether the data was being pushed by someone else would also be relevant.

328

Just what I’ve read here. I guess they didn’t state it, but there was “a ton of documentary evidence” they would have acted the same way. Maybe LT can elaborate.

329

I put a pretty good example in post 289.

Click in to see the full FBI text. It won’t let me quote that part.

They were treating this info as if it came from the Clinton campaign from go.

330

That seems pretty evident from that text. So, if anything, maybe Baker perjured himself on the stand.

331

I addressed that post in a subsequent post.

But I would also add that the notion that if the FBI treated it as if it came from the Clinton campaign anyway that would make the lie immaterial appears to be incorrect as a matter of law. The question is only if the lie would be material assuming it was believed.

It’s actually pretty common for people to be prosecuted for lying to the FBI about matters where the FBI already knows it’s a lie at the time it’s uttered, hence the term “perjury trap”. This was the case with the Michael Flynn prosecution, and also Jeff Fortenberry.

332

Poorly.

Blatantly false in both cases.

333

Wow, obvious bullshit case turned out to be obvious bullshit. Who could have imagined??

334

I am going to make the faintest, most pale possible defenses for Durham based on experiences of myself and friends IRL.

Sometimes your boss hands you a shit sandwich, and says in no uncertain terms that you must promote this sandwich as the next big thing, and that it damn well better be a success!

And you, honest to god try, and you stare deeply into the shit sandwich, investigating ways that you can use the bun to hide the shit, or to mitigate the taste of the shit, or maybe deep-fry the shit (that always helps!). But at the end of the day, it’s still shit.

So, because your boss demands it, you finally take your absolute best shit-sandwich variant (deep fried, drenched in hot sauce to cover up the taste, wrapped in bacon, and placed in a high quality bun, and try to sell it to the public.

Who then, in less than 24 hours, tell you that, nope, it’s still shit.

Not that he didn’t have the option of saying no at day one, or resigning, or other options. But sometimes you just do the best you can with what you have on hand.

And rightfully his future career will probably suffer for it.

Thus ends my absolutely minimalist defense of Durham. He may proceed to now take the bird from me for working for Trump and pushing through what was evidently a value-free prosecution.

335

I think the reason that a lot of people (the jury too, presumably) scratch their head and struggle to understand the material difference is because, regardless of whether he was a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign or is just a lawyer who works for the Clinton campaign, his involvement with the Clinton campaign is the same.

If his political affiliation/background/associates would influence how investigators handle his information, then that wouldn’t vary regardless of what he may have said or texted about whether he was on the clock when he went to the feds. The bias in his allegations, to the extent it exists, is still basically the same.

336

So can we expect Sam Stone and Spaceman Spiff to apologize for wasting all our time, and promise to not to be fooled by bullshit Trumpy propaganda again?

337

BWA HA HA HA BULLSHIT!

From the OP:

I am not a lawyer, but I have seen several analyses of this indictment which say it’s a placeholder for further conspiracy charges. A number of individuals are identified by title they held at the time, and these include current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and other people currently in the Biden administration. I have also heard that the Durham investigation is now focused on conspiracy charges. This indictment, so I’ve been told, nullifies the statute of limitations for all those who may have been part of the effort to manufacture evidence against Trump.

Ooh, there was an “effort to manufacture evidence against Trump?” Oh, no, turns out to be just the usual bullshit and lies we expect from this source. But let’s all tremble at the thought that “the investigation is now focused on conspiracy charges”. How fucking stupid and delusional would you have to be to have believed for a second that this would ever lead to any convictions?

338

As for it being one of the ‘weakest’ cases he’s seen, apparently a Grand Jury did not agree. So fhere will be a trial, and we’ll find out how weak the case is then.

But even the Lawfare guy agrees with the basics here : That the Alfa Bank story was a Clinton dirty tricks op, and the people who knew it lied. They just aren’t sure who the liar was and whether there is evidence enough to convict Sussman.

The same people were behind the Steele Dossier. The Hillary campaign had Perkins Coie hire Fusion GPS, which then hired Steele to gin up the dossier.

Does any of this give you any pause whatsoever that maybe Teump wasn’t a Russian stooge?

Well, there was a trial, and we found out. Trump was either a Russian stooge or a paid traitor. In Sam’s case, it’s doubtful the Russians would be willing to pay him.

(The Steele Dossier? Seriously? ROTFLMAFAO!!)

339

No, you’re not. Yes, you do. No, it isn’t.

And let me say again:

BWA HAH HAH!

ETA: Aw, looks like Discourse won’t let me make more than four replies in a row. I was going to go through and mock each and every post from the fools who were hoping that THIS was going to be the magical moment when Trump would be proven vindicated and returned to office to preside over the breakup of Hillary’s Satanic pedophile ring. Sorry, fools. Not now. Not ever. You lost. Keep crying those beautiful tears while we laugh at your inbred stupidity.

340

Modnote: These 4 posts really don’t belong in P&E. Do make counter arguments. Don’t go after other posters please.

341

Probably a rhetorical, but my answer would be ‘Caravan / Buying Greenland / Chugging Bleach Stupid’.