Is the Special Counsel a corrupt establishment conspirator? In view of John Durham’s long-awaited report on the Russian collusion plot, this is an apparent question that now, unfortunately, requires an answer.
Media pundits keep telling us that these federal litigators assigned to these significant cases are apolitical and bipartisan people brimming with dependable character and integrity, and thus totally trustworthy. Yet time and again proven criminals escape prosecution and punishment—at least, certain proven criminals, criminals of a certain distinction.
Establishment members never get punished. Pick your historic crime: a treasonous Russian collusion plot, Hunter and Joe Biden’s laptop crimes, election fraud. Crime after criminal and ethical and immoral crime, the result for liberal members is the same: no punishment.
So, quick question: when political leaders can commit crimes and control their own justice, what do they call that? Tyranny? Communism?
Pretty sure those are the terms.
Regarding Durham and his investigation, let’s understand precisely what took place …
Russiagate—the term for the establishment’s treasonous Russian collusion coup—was a political operation launched by Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC (Democrat National Committee). Or basically, Clinton and the Democrat Party. Criminally, they used campaign money to buy a fictional story about Donald Trump from FBI informant and former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, which they then put into a document, the Steele Dossier, and took to the FBI.
Knowing the information therein was a manufactured and false Clinton product, the FBI still and then took that document and launched a full-scale investigation into Donald Trump anyway. Looking to expand their investigation and its capacities—surveillance, the FBI then took the fictional information to the FISA (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court) court.
Once in court, the FBI claimed it had extensive information that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, a spy for the Russians—information the FBI, again, knew was manufactured and false. Therein, the FBI lied to the FISA court and judge—about the information, the facts, and their biases. Most importantly, the agency did not provide the court the evidence of the target’s [Trump’s] innocence in their investigation [evidence they had, and a fact they knew for their case being a manufactured fraud and coup attempt], a fundamental requirement in the judicial warrant process.
So basically, the FBI knowingly lied to a federal court to achieve their objective, which was to surveil a political candidate they did not like, who they no less knew was being targeted by his political opponent, Clinton, whom they obviously preferred.
And, they succeeded.
Clinton got the ball rolling with the paid for fiction and, after she lost the 2016 election, the FBI took over and kept the conspiracy ball rolling. A contrived, predicateless venture otherwise known as: a conspiratorial coup.
In sum, if there was no predicate for the Trump/Russian collusion investigation, no reason to open it, for the investigation to ever begin, or for the surveillance warrant to be issued. Then everything that happened afterward—the Mueller investigation, the trials of Trump cabinet members, the advocating news stories, the years-long taunting by gullible and annoying liberal voters—shouldn’t have happened either.
Per his report, Durham verified this lack of predicate, and in fact laid out the above summary in exhaustive and excruciating detail. But the lack of predicate wasn’t the point he was making. He was saying something else. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” [emphasis added]
In other words, “no [FISA] warrants shall issue” without a predicate.
Durham was saying the coup conspirators broke the law. They had no cause to surveil Trump, and they knew it [executing a treasonous coup, of course they knew it!]. Yet they did it anyway, with a manufactured fiction they knew to be invented. A dreamed-up, paid for tale that they put in an official document to destroy a political opponent and steal an election.
Okay, so. The crime incontrovertible, where are the arrests, indictments, and prosecutions? Which should be a rather long, scroll-like list of individuals.
Clinton was definitely a conspirator. Barrack Obama was, too, and his entire administration, from White House advisers to members of the FBI, intelligence community, and Department of Justice (DOJ). So was Christopher Steele, along with Glenn Simpson and his entire Fusion GPS staff. There were Democrat Party members, Adam Schiff for one, and a slew of others. Members of the news media were involved, too, and not just reporting contrived and fake news stories, but actively participating in the coup itself.
The coup never stood a chance of success without the news media’s involvement.
Know that. Never forget it.
There are a lot of agency and company labels here, but within are countless individuals, conspirators, who perpetuated this now undeniable crime—multiple crimes, actually. Hence, this is clearly much worse than a mere “no predicate” issue and negligent police work.
Clearly, it’s a criminal conspiracy. Indeed, a historic crime of treason.
When you have no probable cause, no “predicate,’ you violate the Fourth Amendment. When a group of public officials has no predicate, and know they have no predicate, because they know the information they are using is manufactured and false. Then it’s a conspiracy—a conspiracy to defraud voters, to subvert an election, and to ultimately commit treason.
So again, a major and historic crime clearly and unquestionably committed, where are Durham’s arrests, indictments, and prosecutions? His final report and investigatory task now complete, we know there won’t be any further indictments or prosecutions or punishment by Durham. As former FBI Director, James Comey, did for Clinton and her classified document crimes, Durham laid out the conspirator’s crimes in his report, and has effectively exonerated the conspirators, too.
Well, Durham did try a couple of cases in court and lost, you say. True. But, how hard did he really try? We know what really trying, what being extremely determined to destroy your target looks like. It’s an establishment and deep state trying to pull off a treasonous plot both to steal an election and destroy a president they don’t like.
Now that’s trying!
Did Durham try this hard? Was he as vehemently committed to success? Or is he yet another establishment conspirator tasked with playing his role and making sure the establishment prevails and survives? He makes clear in his report that a major and historic crime took place involving a scroll-like list of conspirators. Yet there are no further indictments, prosecutions, or potential punishment?
Pardon the profanity, but, how the f- can that possibly be?!
Ask Comey: how can you lay out all these crimes committed by the target of your investigation, and then say “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” against the target? People stand around glancing at one another confused, How can he itemize all these crimes and not prosecute? As if they’ve missed some key detail or haven’t the legal acumen to understand. But they haven’t missed anything. There simply won’t be any prosecution because Comey, a collusion conspirator, didn’t want there to be a prosecution of Hillary Clinton, not only his fellow conspirator, but the Russian collusion architect.
Likewise, here’s Durham laying out in his report the crimes of these establishment conspirators, the very same conspirators Comey protected, incidentally, and he isn’t bringing any more cases, either. Conclusion?
Let’s just say one and one makes two.
Durham did indeed bring a couple of cases—Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko—to trial. The liberal juries in DC and Virginia nullified the overwhelming evidence against both men, which means both could’ve confessed their crimes and the juries wouldn’t have convicted them merely for the convictions validating Trump and his “witch hunt” claims.
In fact, upon conclusion of the Sussmann trial, the jury foreperson said, “Personally, I don’t think [the case] should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely. The government had the job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt. We broke it down…as a jury. It didn’t pan out in the government’s favor.”
Rather, it didn’t pan out in Trump’s favor.
As for the foreperson’s “time and resources” complaint, incidentally, what could the nation do with $40 million dollars spent on a fraud that Sussmann and his collusion conspirators, namely Robert Mueller, perpetrated at taxpayer expense? Did that “affect the nation as a whole?” How about election fraud and disenfranchising American voters? That have national implications?
Better still, Ms. Liberal Jury Foreperson, does any of that change your opinion about Trump? That he was the actual victim of a manufactured state crime and not a Russian asset? No? Not even a little?
Oh boy. She gave us the finger. Typical.
Yes, Durham failed twice in court. So, what? Did he become demoralized, forlorn, and throw-in the litigious towel? Or did he take the occasion to wrap up the investigation for himself and the rest of his fellow establishment conspirators?
Durham did manage one conviction in the case: FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, which was a conviction Durham couldn’t avoid, actually, for Clinesmith being so reckless and foolish. Nevertheless, it’s a litigious success that presents an interesting, and perhaps, condemning, query.
A convicted collusion conspirator, Clinesmith altered a document and intentionally lied to a federal court, just so the FBI and DOJ could secure probable cause and get the warrant, which “shall not be issued but upon probable cause,” to spy on Trump. Clinesmith agreed to plead guilty, because, well, there’s the clearly altered document, and he was caught. So, as part of the plea deal, why didn’t Durham bind Clinesmith’s cooperation to the plea agreement thereafter? Or more simply, as a condition of Clinesmith’s plea, why didn’t Durham force him to cooperate?
Durham states in his own report that Clinesmith declined to participate.
Declined to participate? What is this fresh nonsense?!
Was anyone allowed to decline participation in Mueller’s phony Russian collusion investigation?
No.
Who told Clinesmith to alter the document?
Were his superiors involved?
Did someone sign-off on his lie?
But a few important questions we have no answer to because Clinesmith “declined” to participate, and Durham allowed it.
And, it gets worse …
Durham allowed the architects—FBI Director James Comey, Peter Strozk, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and others—of the biggest, most fraudulent conspiracy in FBI/DOJ history to effectively decline participation, too. Strikingly, or perhaps, condemningly, none of them were brought under subpoena and compelled to testify, either.
So, let’s be clear: the two people responsible for our law enforcement community, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, launched a fraudulent investigation, knowingly lied to a federal court to enhance that fraudulent investigation, leaked about it to the media, allowed it to continue for over a year. And John Durham never spoke to them?
Durham’s task boiled down to one question: did the FBI have a predicate, have probable cause, to open the Crossfire Hurricane case and spy on Trump? His conclusion was a resounding no, which then compels a crime, and participants in that crime. And Durham allows them to decline participation and doesn’t speak to them.
Why? Why would such fundamental aspects of prosecutorial procedure be neglected and allowed?
Durham is a 30-plus-year federal prosecutor, was the US Attorney for the District of Connecticut and ran an entire federal prosecutor’s office. He served multiple jurisdictions in administrations, both republican and democrat. So, as former federal prosecutor himself, Kash Patel, said, “There is no way he doesn’t know how to use the grand jury process and subpoena individuals.”
So then, Durham allowed these criminals walk. Let them walk even knowing, per his report, they were guilty. Thus, Durham is one of two things in this scenario: a prosecutor, if inept and failed, or an establishment conspirator. And prosecutors, determined prosecutors, apolitical and unbiased prosecutors, prosecutors brimming with dependable character and integrity, and totally trustworthy, do not fail to compel cooperation and allow criminals to go unpunished.
Juries might allow it, which signals genuine national peril, incidentally. But not committed, competent, honest prosecutors of unquestionable character and integrity.
During his testimony to congress, Durham found it “sobering” that the FBI didn’t interview its sources for its Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Yet here he is having done the very same thing. When your goals are honesty, fairness, and integrity, and to protect the accused and the accused’s rights and reputation, you do the work to make sure the accusations are true and that your resulting charges are warranted.
Even the mundane and unnecessary tasks, like, you know, speaking to the accusers.
The establishment swamp is a deeply corrupt and fetid place, a degree of which the American people had no idea. Donald Trump exposed not only that the swamp exists, but that it is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. Self-serving dwellers who want the political arrangement to remain the same, where they get to play their political games at quite literally the public’s expense. Where they get to hand out other people’s money and receive all the accolades of charitable compassion, and get to enjoy notoriety and celebrity and status, and the financial fruits thereof.
The American people had no idea of the depth of the corruption, which has taken seven years to but partially expose. The opened sore continues to ooze, however, continues to reveal secrets and data as to how deep the corruption runs. For the continuing revelations, establishment figures, both republican and democrat, have been forced to publicly choose sides, if only by behavior and in deed. Trump remaining relative has made every swamp dweller publicize both their identity and loyalty, specifically establishment republicans. They talk about the rule of law and the national debt, and about everything and anything but the confirmed fact Donald Trump—and America—has been a victim of a treasonous plot, and that Joe Biden and his establishment conspirators are being protected by the establishment, which obviously includes these establishment-loyal republicans.
As obscenely corrupt and disturbing as that is, the question is, does the establishment’s corruption reach the Special Prosecutor’s office and include John Durham? Because, it appears it does.
Or, perhaps there is another answer …
Former US Attorney, Brett Tolman:
“I had my fair share of run-ins with main justice [DOJ]. John Durham is a good man. He’s hard working, but I believe absolutely that [he] was hamstrung by the Department of Justice; I think, at every angle that he probably wanted to pursue. [Selecting him] was both the optic of appointing a special counsel that provided some semblance of hope to the right, but it was also the trap the DOJ could use to confine the nature of the investigation and the aggression of the investigation.
“Think about when the DOJ wants to be aggressive. We see them be aggressive when they want to, when it’s classified documents in the possession of a former president [Trump], they can be very, very aggressive. If it’s Hunter Biden, they can delay. If it’s special counsel John Durham … And I don’t believe that it was the investigation that [Durham] truly wanted to run. I think what you saw was an investigation that was outlined for him, that this was the way it was going to go down in the department.”
Of course, Durham had the ability to fight back, the ability to say, No, this is my investigation and I’m here to find the truth wherever it leads. The DOJ certainly sanctioned the ability of other investigations to expand their focus, namely the Mueller investigation. If the DOJ was putting roadblocks in Durham’s way to hamstring his investigation and conceal the truth—their establishment crimes, Durham could have overcome them.
Tolman again: “I don’t want to excuse John Durham for failings that may have been the result of his decision making. Because he certainly could have pressed the envelope, been more public. But it’s not his demeanor to do so, and I think [the DOJ conspirators] knew that when they put him in that position. You needed someone that was going to be willing to butt their head up against the executive levels of DOJ and say, No, I am going to issue a subpoena to Jim Comey. I am going to subpoena Hillary Clinton. I’m going to subpoena [Andrew] McCabe and [Peter] Strozk. And if they want to take the 5th [Amendment], I’m going to make them do it on the record, and then I’m going to decide which ones I’ll give immunity to, and leverage, so that I can get them to talk. And they’ll be under oath. And if they don’t cooperate, we’ll go after them for obstruction. [The investigation] needed to have somebody that had that aggression, but [the DOJ conspirators] knew that they didn’t have that in John Durham.”
So then, was John Durham a willing conspirator, or merely temperamentally weak and controllable?
Either way, the establishment conspirators all got what they wanted: no punishment.
The math is interesting: virtually everyone in Washington, the news media, and the entertainment industry despises Trump, to include former Attorney General William Barr, who appointed Durham to investigate crimes against Trump, and current AG, Merrick Garland, who unprecedentedly raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home for classified documents, and indicted him for related crimes. Durham just testified to congress that the entire Russian collusion matter was a treasonous plot involving all these establishment figures and agencies. And all are not only ignoring the revelation, but still angling to destroy the plot’s target and victim: Donald Trump.
As recent years keep repeatedly revealing, the question about any and every establishment figure is not: are they corrupt? But are they not corrupt? Unfortunately, none can be afforded the benefit of presumed honesty and righteousness and innocence anymore. Henceforth, the assumption must be: they’re dirty, until they prove themselves otherwise.
In his testimony to congress, Durham said his findings are “serious” and “deserve attention from the American public and its representatives.” “We found troubling violations of law and policy in the conduct of highly consequential investigations directed at members of a presidential campaign and ultimately, a presidential administration [the Trump administration]. To me,” he said, “it matters not whether it was a Republican campaign or a Democrat campaign. The law ought to apply to everybody in the same way.”
Well, Durham had the equal justice ball in his hands, and an opportunity to do just that. So, why didn’t he?
A weak and controllable temperament seems awfully convenient … to me.
The unfortunate suspicion is Durham’s fault, purely a consequence of not having the cojones to do what was clearly and unmistakably right—if, indeed, that concept was ever a consideration in the first place.
©JMW 6/2023
All Rights Reserved
JMWs Latest: New Rules: Relationship Logic for the Darkside.
John Mark Warren 