That was always very dodgy. I got the feeling that many in the press just didn’t want to know and therefore didn’t look.
20 Likes
has told the Department of Justice that he will seek an indictment for an attorney whose firm has represented the Democratic National Committee
Indict, or indict not. There is no seek.
(the point being, he has to get a grand jury to agree with him before there’s an indictment)
17 Likes
Durham’s grasp exceeds his reach…
8 Likes
That and the epidemic of contagious 5th floor windows.
3 Likes
8 Likes
So does his stache
11 Likes
36 Likes
So the cart comes after the horse now?
5 Likes
I was working on a Wilford Brimley joke, but you are the man.
9 Likes
This looks like a face saving move on the part of Durham to justify the millions he has spent chasing a political prosecution. It reminds me of Ken Starr’s third indictment of Web Hubbell just before stepping down $40M dollars later, to try and justify the Whitewater investigation.
Edited to clarify that Hubbell was indicted 3 times.
28 Likes
Don’t think it’s SOP to announce that one is seeking an indictment, but we don’t know which party leaked this.
7 Likes
You know, it’s almost like there’s some timeline being carefully put together somewhere by some…oh I dunno…committee…investigation team…or something.
11 Likes
Imbecile saleout John Durham is grasping straws, spent millions of dollars, travelled Europe on taxpayer money and he comes out with a BS case against a lawyer unrelated to the DOJ.
15 Likes
Durham had to do something. This sounds kinda like he’s reaching, but obviously he needs to justify this years long bullshit.
Wonder how much this cost taxpayers.
11 Likes
Yes, and what @occamscoin said. Also, has to be the complex high tech rabbit hole of all rabbit holes to sort out.
7 Likes
And here I thought that the Michael Flynn case had taught us that lying to the FBI is no big deal. Or does it only matter if you are a Democrat?
35 Likes
Now that Dumbold is finishing up this task, will he resurrect Benghazi, too?
4 Likes
sources told the Post and the New York Times that [FBI agent] Baker told investigators that he remembered Sussmann saying he wasn’t working for any client.
This is yet one more example of the problems caused by the FBI’s refusal to tape record (or video) witness interviews. That may be changing, but historically the FBI has preferred to let their agents write up the interviews in their own way – unfettered by a mere recording.
This can be comical. In some cases, FBI agents have included “verbatim quotes” of traditional Navajo defendants using words that the defendant didn’t know and had probably never even heard. But more often it is anything but comical.
25 Likes
To be clear, limitations is only up as to Sussmann this weekend, because his alleged offense occurred on Sep. 19, 2016. Durham still has time to bring more charged on other stuff that happened after that (not that he’s ever shown any sign of having a meaningful case to bring).
16 Likes