Remember Durham?
Well, He actually indicted someone.
I’m somewhat shocked.
From the article:
A federal grand jury indicted a former attorney for the Democratic National Committee Thursday, alleging that he falsely claimed to the FBI that he was not advising Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign when he raised concerns about purported ties between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.
The case against Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer at powerful Democratic firm Perkins Coie, is just the second prosecution brought by special counsel John Durham, who was tasked by then-Attorney General Bill Barr in May 2019 with looking into how the FBI’s investigation into claims Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign coordinated with Russian government officials came to be.
Sussmann is accused of a single count of making a false statement to federal authorities on Sept. 19, 2016. The indictment was returned just three days short of the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.
This reminds me somewhat of Durham’s previous charge, which was against FBI lawyer Kenneth Clinesmith, who ended up receiving probation after pleading guilty. Big deal.
But others think this may lead to bigger fish – for example, see this. Jonathan Turley also sees further possibilities. He lists various people who might end up implicated – although perhaps not indicted, since the statute of limitations may have run out on some. Then he adds this:
The final fight may be over the report itself. Many in Congress and the media may not want it to see the light of day since it is likely to be an indictment not just of the FBI but of the establishment and an enabling media. Yet these same figures demanded “full transparency” over the Mueller report, including secret grand jury material barred from release under federal law. Even in a city that lives on political spin, reversing that narrative to demand secrecy or major redactions may be difficult to achieve in front of an increasingly distrustful public.
I think Turley is naive. Democrats have had no trouble reversing, or turning inside out, every other principle they once said they held dear. Why not that one? And the public is indeed “increasingly distrustful,” but this administration and the Democratic Party in general don’t seem to care about gaining or regaining the public’s trust. They have power, and they appear to think they will hold onto it no matter what.
Durham, and his so-called “report” are about 2 years past their expiration date. What a waste of money and resources for diddly squat.
They have power, and they appear to think they will hold onto it no matter what.
While I’m sure some of them are self deluded enough believe that they could never lose power, my guess is that most of them are at least dimly aware that there’s a ticking clock, so they’re attempting to get as much done as possible. It’s like the border “crisis”. It’s obviously all intentional and it’s obviously untenable for any great length of time. But it doesn’t matter. Their goal is to get as many new Dem voters in as quickly as possible. That’s it.
As for Durham, I’m not expecting anything significant from that. And I never really did despite the various commentators across the conservative universe fevered speculations and imaginings of Durham heralding some great reckoning for the Deep State and the Democrat Party. I’d love to be proven wrong of course.
A DC jury will let him, and any other Democrat politician, walk. Remember how Greg Craig walked on charges that put Manafort in solitary ?
A federal jury on Wednesday found the prominent Washington lawyer Greg Craig, who worked for two Democratic presidents, not guilty of making false statements to the Justice Department about work he did for the Ukrainian government.
As long as it is DC, they are safe. The kids from Kentucky sued in that state and scared CNN into settling.
When PJ O’Rourke was still funny, he wrote that the three co-equal branches of the Federal Government were Money, Television, and Bullshit.
I will give Durham credit for actually taking this seriously, as opposed to Bill Bar who clearly just thought he needed to make a fuss and scare straight a few bad apples. But I also think Durham knows that any charge he files has to be a 1000% slam dunk, so a lot of people who might otherwise be indicted will go unscathed.
Mike
There was a story about Clinesmith a month ago. Wasn’t he reinstated to the bar? Or his sentence changed to volunteer work? Something like that.
In other words, even the wrist slap for a serious crime was undone.
Everything we know happened and they get 1 indictment? My suspicion is that’s it, and besides he had to get convicted in DC, it will never happen.
Biden will pardon this guy and blame Trump.
Sussmann is accused of a single count of making a false statement to federal authorities on Sept. 19, 2016. The indictment was returned just three days short of the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.
Isn’t this pathetic?
They’ve got Sussmann on a single false statement from five years ago and I’ll bet Durham had a solid case within a month of starting his investigation.
If Durham is doing anything more than the bare minimum over the longest amount of time so he doesn’t look like a completely unserious person, I’ll be surprised.
Pure political Kabuki.
Like everyone here, I too think that the guilty have knowing, self-satisfied smirks on their faces.
“They have power, and they appear to think they will hold onto it no matter what.” neo
And that shall be their undoing. Pride and its handmaid hubris, goeth before the fall. The more they get away with, the harder they push, until all caution and prudence are abandoned in their lust for power, dominance and control.
Inevitably that shall lead to… unintended consequences.
If only the unintended consequences could only land on them. Being collateral damage sucks.
Recall the “punishment” received by the former US AG Eric Holder; he was cited for contempt of congress. The first time in US history this occurred.
IIRC it was for lying to Congress about the gun running scheme he concocted to supply guns to Mexican drug gangs. I believe a US border patrol agent was killed with one of these guns.
Let’s examine Holder’s punishment; he was not indicted, he spent zero days in jail, he was put on “probation” for zero days, he lost zero days of pay, he lost zero $$$ of his pension, he lost zero influence within the leftist ruling elites of the USA.
Yea, he really took a big hit; a really traumatic event in Holder’s life.
I bet he is suffering still from PTSD; poor guy.
This guy Sussman will probably receive the same punishment and suffer the same consequences that befell Holder. Sussman must be shitting his knickers just waiting for the legal axe to sever his head from his torso. Yep, must be sweating bullets.
It’s hard to believe that the DOJ can find any attorney within their ranks that actually wants to see Sussman punished. In fact, they are all probably good pals of Sussman.
Our govt. has become a big F’ing joke, and who can we thank for this?
Oh, that’s right, the voters.
Just had some guests over for a few days; one of whom was a Joke Bidet voter. She voted for Bidet because she did not like Trump’s tweets and demeanor; she thought him a nasty fellow.
Yep, who cares about a candidates policies or accomplishments (or lack thereof); what matters is if they are “nice” folks.
The dems may be overconfident and think they are in the drivers seat for good, but guess what, they probably are.
They have “fixed” the federal bureaucracy – our version of the Bolshevik nomenklatura – so that even if a guy like Trump gets elected – he cannot realistically change the way things are done. The bureaucracy will obfuscate, delay, excuse, resist, leak – whatever – and just wait the requisite 4 or 8 years until their guy gets in.
At which point they will even further entrench themselves into the process of govt, ; like a metastasizing cancer that never stops metastasizing.
There really is no solution to this other than the elimination of 90% of the Federal bureaucracy.
The odds of this happening are less than that of winning the Powerball lottery.
Did I read somewhere that the Statute of Limitations for criminal prosecution on these charges is up this weekend, leaving only civil charges?
I also think Turley is being naive, but then in my opinion any self-identified Democrat with real principles is naive by definition.
For the Democrat Pro’s, having double-standards as a way of life makes them think they’re twice as principled.
“The odds of this happening are less than that of winning the Powerball lottery.”
We have…
1. Americans and American allies still trapped in Afghanistan.
2. Thousands of Haitian immigrants living under a bridge in Texas.
3. Just announced that the U.S. military killed innocent civilians in a drone strike.
4. COVID surging across the country.
5. Inflation persisting past any expert predictions.
6. France recalling its U.S. ambassador for the first time in history.
And our President and Commander-in-Chief went on vacation at 12:30 pm today.
The pain from the inevitable catastrophe, or likely series of catastrophes, headed our way will make a whole lot of previously unthinkable things possible with our government.
Mike
I still don’t understand how we went wrong with Durham.
That name!
Those piercing blue eyes!
A moustache/beard that would make Kurt Russell run!
A mystery.
@ Bryan > “If only the unintended consequences could only land on them. Being collateral damage sucks.”
You are assuming the collateral damage was not intended.
James Howard Kunstler (“Clusterf**k Nation”) on the Sussmann indictment:
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/look-ye-shipmates-he-breaches/
Quote: “The overwhelming body of opinion for more than a year is that John Durham is a phantom doing next-to-nothing about the greatest political scandal in US history. If his efforts end with Mr. Sussmann, he will disgrace himself, of course, and that’s a possibility. But I would venture to suppose that it won’t end there.”
Also: “There are enough other forces in motion now to throw a spanner in the engine of malice our government has become. Let Karma do its thing and hold on tight for a rough ride.”
Well, certainly agree about the rough ride part.
I’ve written several times here about the “audience” i.e. the American people, and how, beginning in WWII, the Left began to propagandize us, to gradually change us, the “audience,” so that as we almost unanimously did in the WWII era, we would not reject, reflexively and out of hand, what the Left was selling, but would be increasingly more receptive to it’s pitch. (See, for instance, the story out today about the propaganda drenched classroom of one teacher in LA at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/los-angeles-teacher-caught-f-k-police-f-k-amerikkka-propaganda-hanging-classroom/)
Thus, the reason that all of these swamp dwellers are able to get away with what they have been getting away with–the reason they are never punished, but just smirk and sneer, and slither away to the next party, book signing, and high-paying job–is that the audience has, indeed, large numbers of us, have been “changed.”
Because the troops of the Left have gradually moved in to occupy all of the key positions of power and, paralleling this, our whole moral and ethical structure and viewpoint has been transmogrified, public and private acts, things which would have provoked instantaneous, righteous anger and action among large numbers of the public, and among the majority of public officials, are now seen as either inconsequential, or incapable of resolution.
Moreover, it has been demonstrated that standing up for principle, today, will only get you knocked down—see the example of Gen. Michael Flynn, see the examples of the two military officers who recently resigned.
This because so few people remain—especially those who have power to effect things–who will agree with you, and, more importantly, back your stand with action.
Durham would have been more meaningfully employed if he’d just strained clam chowder through his repulsive mustache.
Perhaps the reason for the conspicuous delay in action by Durham has been precisely to allow the statute of limitations to run, thus guaranteeing that many potential indictees will be put out of reach of prosecution.
@ Snow – “Perhaps the reason for the conspicuous delay in action by Durham has been precisely to allow the statute of limitations to run, thus guaranteeing that many potential indictees will be put out of reach of prosecution.”
It is a measure of my increased cynicism over the last few years that this was my first thought. In which case, the Sussman indictment is of the “most expendable sacrifice for the optics” category, and perhaps it is thought that he can beat the rap more easily than others could.
I would like to be wrong.
The Babylon Bee just ran a sarcastic story that makes eminent sense:
“Local Man Wouldn’t Have Believed There Was Election Fraud Except Media, Big Tech Keep Insisting That There Wasn’t”
I will further observe that while the media delights in using pejorative words to describe 2016 election-fraud claims, calling them “repeatedly debunked lies”, etc. during supposedly sober newscasts, they NEVER use such terminology for other subjects, even for the most hilariously false claims (“Man swears aliens must have secreted stolen rare Ferrari in his garage while he slept”).
It will be up to his friends and relatives at DOJ to charge him, his like minded Marxist neighbors to convict him.
It won’t happen.
“It will be up to his friends and relatives at DOJ…”
Skip, you forgot his paramours… unless by some stroke of bad luck for him, he just jilted one of them!
Another way to interpret the timing of the indictment is that since Sussman knew the SOL was about to run out, he refused to play ball with Durham. Now he may have to. Yeah, I know it’s a longshot.
Media involvement (of course) in pushing the fictional “Narrative”:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/atlantics-franklin-foer-allegedly-identified-reporter-2-sussmann-indictment
Corrupt from Day 1.
(Actually before that, given their shenanigans during the Obama administration.)
Not sure the Democratic Party “bag of tricks” aspect to the Sussman indictment was referred to.
If not, here’s the link:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/572861-clinton-lawyers-indictment-reveals-bag-of-tricks
May prove to be a breakthrough—at least I’d like to hope so…but I’m not sure I’d hold my breath….
Continued…
Marc Elias and—yep!—slimy Jake Sullivan make cameo appearances in the previous link…
Aggie – There are different statutes of limitation (sol) for different charges. Lying to the FBI has a 5 year sol from what I understand. Other charges may have longer sols. More serious charges typically have longer sols. For example, there is no sol for murder.
Gosh, even John (Undercover) Huber is back….
https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1438645413289025538
Who became aware of an impending terrorist attack against the Kabul airport just when the US wanted / needed revenge for the killing of 13 American servicemen? Remember, there were rumors of a pending attack before the drone strike occurred! Was someone able to provide the military with a name so that his vehicle could be tracked? Was that name one that was on the list of US collaborators provided to the Taliban?
Something is rotten in the White House!
Ray Van Dune —
“repeatedly debunked lies”
It works like this:
SWIFT BOAT VETS: John Kerry is a lying Blue Falcon who didn’t do half the things he’s claiming he did.
JOHN KERRY: Yes, I did.
MEDIA: Swift Boat Vets’ wild lies are totally debunked!!!
Barry Meislin links a story claiming Atlantic writer Franklin Foer may have been the reporter who helped relay Sussman’s Russia-Trump narrative into news channels.
Foer is a bad penny who keeps turning up. I first noticed his name in the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. Scott Thomas was an Army private in Iraq, who concocted brutal “diary” entries of American soldiers behaving badly in Iraq and got them published in The New Republic under the name, Scott Thomas Beauchamp. His editor was Franklin Foer.
Thomas was eventually caught out and Foer issued a non-denial denial, “Aw shucks, we thought he was genuine but we can no longer stand by his stories.”
Foer looked ahead to today’s deceitful, advocacy journalism and he is still active.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Thomas_Beauchamp_controversy