Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Forget the Durham Report
When I heard from @rodin that the report on John Durham’s comprehensive investigation wasn’t coming out before the election, I was livid. I’m sure many of you experienced a similar reaction. But I started thinking about the investigation and its results, and realized that we might want to look at them with a revised perspective.
Let’s review the hopes we had when we learned that John Durham was on the case. We hoped that he would provide an incriminating report that would implicate every despicable action taken by the miscreants at the FBI. Perhaps even more important, we wanted justice to be served; after years of watching the attacks on Republicans by the political Left, asking for justice seemed appropriate and fair.
The assumptions we made early on were that the report would be published well before the election, so that the Republicans were less likely to be accused of political motives. We assumed that Joe Biden’s role in these activities would be included, and we would relish his trying to free himself from the entanglement with these outrageous acts. Finally, we wanted to ensure that the results could be acted on by a Republican-appointed Attorney General before the Democrats could bury the information.
So much for hopes, expectations, and assumptions.
But we shouldn’t be surprised. We have no idea why reporting the results has been delayed. We can guess at the reasons: the investigation is still in progress; the AG is afraid of political pushback (which doesn’t sound typical of AG Barr); and we can propose one hundred other reasons. In one sense, I realized, it doesn’t matter.
Consider the following factors:
- Was a report before the election going to be all that helpful? I doubt it. The mainstream media would have ignored it, or discounted it, or made sure that they zeroed in on current issues, claiming that the results were old information. And if the media ignored it, the public would learn next to nothing about what took place. Biden’s people would also have ignored it, stating that Biden doesn’t remember any of the meetings which took place regarding Russian collusion. And no matter how far before the election the information was released, they would cry that the Republicans were trying unfairly to influence election results.
- Is an actual report that critical? I don’t believe that an actual report was promised. Aren’t we most concerned about justice occurring and that some people are actually charged with crimes?
I would like to propose that there is still hope that we will know the results of the investigation. What if Durham releases the results on November 4 or shortly thereafter? The public probably wouldn’t have learned of the results if a report had been released earlier. And if a report is not released immediately, it doesn’t matter. I propose that shortly after the election, Durham and Barr, in a joint press conference, release the names of the people who will go before grand juries for indictment. (I’m not a lawyer so it’s unclear to me whether a grand jury will need to be involved, or if indictments can be made based on Durham’s investigation.) They can promise that the report will be released by a specific time, but shine the spotlight on the criminal activities, and perhaps on those who will lose their jobs.
* * * * *
I believe that most of us want to ensure that prosecutions are pursued and that people are held accountable for their irresponsible, and in some cases criminal, activities. We may not be able to influence the timing, but we can certainly cry for justice.
Justice must be done.
Published in Politics
My guess is that there will be some hybrid form: indictments for some and a memorandum outlining why certain acts were determined to be unprosecutable. There is too much smoke in the air not to address it. If Trump is not re-elected or his re-election is in doubt (due to protracted litigation over the election flowing into January) Barr will probably pull the trigger simply to assure that the record developed-to-date isn’t buried. Of course the media will react but Barr would have kept faith with the American public. If Trump is re-elected this growing investigation will continue to spread with little information forthcoming.
From Fox News:
U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia James Boasberg accepted the plea [of guilty]. Clinesmith’s sentencing date has been set for Dec. 10 at 11 a.m. ET.
Durham’s office on Wednesday said that Clinesmith’s guilty plea was to “one count of making a false statement within both the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the U.S. government, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years and a fine of up to $250,000.”
[I understand this is a one count felony.]
Excellent points, @rodin. I just wish they’d decide that they can conclude “part 1” of the growing investigation and start part 2! I agree that they would be smart to address the actions that they can’t prosecute.
I’m only finding twitter posts when I Google housley Durham. Am unsure if you can access them if you don’t have an account.
I’m positive, independent of Housley, that criminal investigations are presented to grand juries who decide if indictments are warranted. There are either indictments or “no bill.” Grand Jury proceedings are not public.
Housley has sources that say indictments are coming, the charges are explosive and both Democrats and Republicans will be named. The hold up may be related to Covid and/or the complicated nature of the investigation. It is rumored that this will stretch past election day. Durham may not want to “interfere” with the election or he just may not be ready.
Barr cannot disclose Grand Jury information. That can only be done by a Federal Judge and in only the rarest of circumstances. Pretend you were falsely accused of rape. The prosecutor took it to a grand jury who returned “no bill.” Who would want the prosecutor to announce, “Well, he was accused of rape but we couldn’t prove it.”
Yes, if we don’t protect the seditious toadies of a corrupt justice system who will we protect. Sort of like the First Amendment protects offensive speech because what other kind requires protection.
Be careful of what you ask for.
Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens lost re-election after the Dems he was tried for corruption 8 days before his 2008 election. This conviction was set aside.
In 1992 former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger was indicted the Independent Counsel four days before the election.
Many more Republicans have been screwed by these types of indictments than Democrats.
My prediction…some low level flunkies will be indicted and plead guilty to minimal crimes in exchange for no jail time. Higher ups with get nothing. A report will ensue saying “*sad face* Mistakes were made totally by accident. We must make (meaningless but important-sounding) reforms.” Strongly worded memos will be sent out. An internal “review” will be done that miraculously will find no wrong-doing. (“We promise, we looked really really hard!”).
Funny words defending norms from a man wanting to pack the Supreme Court
The conviction wasn’t set aside because of the date of the trial. The conviction was overturned because the DOJ prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence. The judge that overturned it appointed a special prosecutor to investigate those prosecutors.
So much for longstanding policy.
I only was hoping that he would disclose indictments. I wouldn’t want anyone exposed otherwise.
But I sure appreciate that picture I always see of him, and his staff – grim, determined, serious. They weren’t going to mess around. You just KNEW they were gonna blow things wide open….
Would love to be proven wrong, but I think it’s all theater.
Bryan, you don’t know what I want to have happen relative to the Supreme Court. Your anger is blinding your rationality. Let’s stick to arguing facts and history and avoiding personal attacks on each other’s motives.
I see you are familiar with the process. But it doesn’t matter because 112% of voters will vote for Biden while Trump voters will be rounded up and shipped off to reeducation camps outside of Portland. A republic if you can keep it.
Biden supports DC statehood; so does Pelosi.
As to Puerto Rico statehood,
2 Senators for DC, 2 for Puerto Rico.
Biden has historically opposed ending the filibuster, but more recently is being evasive about his view on the issue.
The same is true for packing the Supreme Court.
The energy, the street level organizing, and a lot of the fundraising for the Democrats is with ABR. Biden won Angela Davis’ endorsement because she thinks he will move hard Left on intersectional/racialist issues; he will have to to keep the ABR militants from turning more cities into Portland if he wins with the Left’s help but doesn’t go home from the dance with ABR.
When Harris was running for President, she was “open” to eliminating the electoral college. Biden is evasive there, too.
Andy McCarthy:
Let’s pray that this is not yet another issue about which McCarthy has to write in hindsight: “I never would have thought that (Comey, Mueller, the FBI, the DOJ, etc., etc., etc.) would do that.”
That policy only applies to candidates and is more of a rule-of-thumb.
In federal cases, yes. More to the point, “reports” are not what prosecutors do. They either prosecute cases, following grand jury indictments, or they do not. The huge hurdle in this case is getting a group of Beltway/Swamp area citizens to vote that there is probable cause to prosecute an anti-Trump government operative.
The media’s treatment of DC / Puerto Rico statement will be awesome. The former will be seen through the prism of anti-racism,. the latter through the lens of colonialism. Proof that America is living up to its ideals! Four more leftist Senators: it’s a downpayment on reparations, a historical injustice addressed. In other words, it’s a good start.
The average Biden voter probably doesn’t care about that. They just want normalcy. A better tone. They will be dismayed when the media shows all those conservatives fighting change and progress and franchisement, but heartened when those hated dark forces are fought back, and kinda sorta vaguely okay that the Supreme Court is bigger now? Because we need to ensure health care and stuff?
It’ll be a shot in the arm to traditional Republicans too: four more Senate seats we can flip some day by posting YouTube videos of Ronald Reagan on Facebook, appealing to classic concepts that will totally convince them of the merits of local rule instead of suckling at the long teat of DC. We have to annex the village in order to save it.
The strategic reluctant Biden voter may know this, but none of it’s as important as defeating Trump so we can get back to being a permanent, noble, important minority.
Permanent, noble, disarmed, important minority.
Emphasis added.
What’s the mechanism for accomplishing that? Unlike statehood or packing the Supreme Court, it would require a Constitutional Amendment. You really think three quarters of the states are going to agree to lose their power to influence the Presidential election? [And they’re not going to be able to add enough states to make a difference to that.]
You know that, I know that, and so do Biden (or he used to, anyway) and Harris.
The inability to eliminate the electoral college proves that the Constitution is a roadblock to the mob getting its will. Advocating it is a way to rev up the base to demand that the Supreme Court be packed as an interim way to get revolutionary justice.
One attraction of Durham was that he was out of the DC swamp.
We have one member at least who is certain that he is still part of the swamp. I guess time will tell us through whatever actions he takes.
I think the DC “Swamp” is like “Hollywood” more of a state of mind than an actual place. Whiskey Politics has David Bossie on this week – He’s particularly aggravated by this turn of events, because he wanted hearings on the scandal – but was sidelined by the DOJ over concerns of interfering with this investigation. Now we have the worst of both worlds – no indictments and no public hearings to get the malfeasance of the Obama administration (including Joe Biden) on the public record.