DEFUND DURHAM NOW.
Recall that one of the final acts of Bill Barr's tenure in the department of justice was to appoint John H. Durham to investigate whether Democratic lawyers and campaign workers erroneously tied the former guy's organization to a bank in Russia.
"To date, there has been no publication that he has found any such evidence." Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and William K. Rashbaum, Special Counsel on Russia Said to be Seeking Charges Against Lawyer, NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, September 16, 2021, at A17.
To the contrary. All the evidence revealed so far says that there is nothing to it. If Mr. Durham has any hidden evidence, now would be a good time to show it to the grand jury; if he does not have any hidden evidence, now would be a good time for Mr. Durham to shut it down.
Apparently undeterred by any lack of evidence, and wanting to show something for his expenses, Mr. Durham is reportedly planning to ask a grand jury to indict a lawyer, Michael Sussman. Mr. Sussman met with the FBI's General Counsel before the former guy was made the Occupant of the Oval Office.
The idea behind the indictment is that the lawyer lied to the FBI's General Counsel, James Baker, about whether he, the lawyer, was representing a client or not when he met with the General Counsel. The lawyer, Mr. Sussman, met with the General Counsel to tell the FBI that there was cybersecurity information indicating that the former guy's organization and a Russian bank may have been "pinging" each other's computer servers. Mr. Sussman told the General Counsel that the information came from a cybersecurity expert or experts. Mr. Sussman's defense lawyers say that Mr. Sussman was representing a cybersecurity expert when he met with Mr. Baker of the FBI.
Here is the evidence we know that Mr. Durham has turned up after all this time on the case. Mr. Baker, the FBI General Counsel, testified under oath in 2018 that he did not remember the lawyer, Mr. Sussman, specifically saying that he was acting on behalf of a particular client when they met together.
However, not to be shown up as investigators, Mr. Durham's team surfaced some "handwritten notes" written by an unidentified person who supposedly wrote down that Mr. Baker told him that Mr. Sussman said, or did not say, something about representing, or not representing, a client at the time Mr. Baker and Mr. Sussman met.
This is not admissible; it is not even evidence. But it doesn't have to be, if the goal is to destroy and not to convict.
Mr. Durham is also reportedly deciding whether to bring "some sort of action" against Mr. Sussman's law firm, Perkins Coie. The Perkins Coie firm has been a target of the former guy and his minions for years. Expect more destruction if Mr. Durham is allowed to continue his campaign.
In the meantime, Mr. Durham has been operating with the blessing but without any oversight of the current department of justice and the current attorney general, MERRICK GARLAND. Mr. GARLAND of course "has the authority to overrule Mr. Durham but is said to have declined to" overrule him. Charlie Savage, et al., NEW YORK TIMES, supra.
Why is MERRICK GARLAND tolerating this sloppy performative destruction that characterizes Mr. Durham's "investigation"? The task of the department of justice ought to be to surface evidence that is likely to lead to a criminal conviction. Until now, perhaps until the advent of the regime of the former guy and of Mr. Barr's reign over the department of justice, the task of the department has never been to surface supposed hearsay for the purpose of destroying political opponents.
Regardless if he thinks otherwise, MERRICK GARLAND does not come off appearing unbiased or even-handed by tolerating the destruction that Mr. Durham is causing. MERRICK GARLAND's tolerance of destruction comes off as something much smaller. Perhaps he should consider resigning if the job of attorney general is beyond his powers.
Moreover, Mr. Durham's so-called investigation for destruction has not been paid for by the former guy, or by Mr. Barr, or in fact by Mr. Durham. Federal taxpayers like you and me have paid and continue to pay for this humiliating display of incompetence. It is past time to defund Durham.
Defund Durham now. Call upon your Members of Congress and Senators to act in defense of justice, when the department of justice will not, and tell them to defund Durham now.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2021 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments