Has Durham Screwed Up The Russia Hoax Investigation?
And More!
That’s the thesis of an article by Margot Cleveland—one of our go to legal analysts—that was brought to our attention by commenter Cassander:
Exclusive Doc Indicates Special Counsel Failing To Bring Collusion Hoaxers To Justice
John Durham’s team has known of these discrepancies for years but has failed to hold responsible those who used the CIA to target a political opponent with false smears.
Cleveland’s take on Durham is arguably kinder than Don Surber’s—also this morning:
ITEM 4: Speaking of bullshit, John Durham is closing his investigation into how the FBI lied and spied on Trump on behalf of Obama after allowing the statute of limitation to expire.
He didn't want to be Arkancided.
Here’s how Cleveland frames it:
A whitepaper obtained first by The Federalist suggests Special Counsel John Durham botched the investigation of a second Russia collusion hoax, the one concerning Yota cellphones.
In a scandal linked to the Spygate operation, Hillary Clinton cronies peddled to the CIA fake evidence they claimed established Donald Trump and his associates were using the Russian-made Yota cellphones in the vicinity of the White House and other key locations. The news of this operation broke during the special counsel’s prosecution of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann. However, the just-obtained Yota whitepaper that was supposed to undergird Sussmann’s claims differs substantially from the memoranda documenting what Sussmann supposedly said to the CIA.
The nub of the comparison of the data presented in the whitepaper versus what Sussmann presented to the CIA, after the 2016 election, is that Susssmann wildly exaggerated the data regarding Yota phone usage in the US. Which is to say, Sussmann lied to the CIA, but was never prosecuted under 18 USC 1001 False Statements.
Why was Sussmann never prosecuted for these lies? We don’t know. Was it because the CIA never acted in reliance upon Sussmann’s lies, while the FBI used Sussmann’s lies to justify their hoax investigation of Trump? That would be my best guess. Cleveland is outraged at Durham’s failure to prosecute Sussmann for his lies to the CIA. I’m not as outraged—not because I have any sympathy at all for Sussmann, but because I don’t like the use that the False Statement charge is put to these days, as in the Danchenko case.
In any event, for anyone looking for an excellent review of the Yota phone caper, I highly recommend the article.
Big news from Texas:
And Martha’s Vineyard:
Just a guess, but first a quote from Sun Tzu: "Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." He also said: "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight."
I think Durham is holding his fire and proceeding methodically. What has happened is so big that any piecemeal attempt to reform things will fail. Trump could not choose good people and fire the rest, as so many suggest. He had Diogenes problem of finding an honest man in Washington. Should he come back he now can prove illegalities and implicate maybe three quarters of Washington. It will not be pretty. Without massive public support he probably wouldn't even be interested in trying. He may get that public support when we hit rock bottom.
My guess is Durham scope is limited, as Barr set it up that way to protect the FBI. And the Biden Administration has probably tightened the scope even further.
I appreciate the revelations from Durham, but I have low expectations on any meaningful indictments.