General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEven More Questions About the Durham Investigation
Link to tweet
https://www.lawfareblog.com/even-more-questions-about-durham-investigation
In July, Jack Goldsmith and I published an analysis of U.S. Attorney John Durhams ongoing probe of the government investigators responsible for examining Trump-Russia related matters before and after the 2016 election. Then, we concluded that a federal prosecutor was not the appropriate institutional actor for the inquiry as it developed, and that President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have damaged the investigations credibility through their public commentary about it.
Since then, there have been some developments. On Aug. 19, Durham secured a guilty plea from former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who doctored an email that the government relied on in its fourth and final warrant application to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. (The existence of the altered email had been known since Nov. 2019, when CNN first broke the story that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz had turned it over to Durham.) On Sept. 9, when Barr was asked if Durham is nearing the end of the investigation, he replied: Im not going to characterize exactly where he is. Barr also said that there could be further criminal charges. And most recently, the Hartford Courant reported that Nora Dannehy, a top Durham aide and highly regarded federal prosecutor, had resigned from the Department of Justice at least partly out of concern that the [Durham] investigative team is being pressed for political reasons to produce a report before its work is done.
Much remains unknown about Durhams work. But two new sources of informationthe fifth volume of the Senate Select Intelligence Committees bipartisan report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and New York Times reporter Michael Schmidts new book Donald Trump v. the United Statesraise even more questions about the investigation.
Durhams Investigation of Then FBI Director Comey in 2017
Schmidt reports in his book that around March 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions tapped Durhamthen an assistant United States attorney in Connecticutto open a leak investigation into FBI Director James Comey following reporting by the New York Times that Comey had asked the Justice Department to refute Trumps baseless allegations that former President Barack Obama had ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower. The investigation reported directly to Sessions. Schmidt adds that Durhams investigation unnerved career officials in the deputy attorney generals office, which is generally responsible for the departments day-to-day operations and normally would have overseen an investigation like Durhams.
*snip*
NCjack
(10,279 posts)be credible. Now, Durham is boxed. If he resigns, he loses control of the final edit of his report and will be sued by those slandered in his report.
ScratchCat
(2,017 posts)With the #2 prosecutor resigning, she either discussed it at lengths with Durham and he's next, or she believes Durham is compromised. I can't fathom another possibility.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)he can kiss that nice reputation of his goodbye.
maxsolomon
(33,449 posts)Nora Dannehy, a top Durham aide and highly regarded federal prosecutor, had resigned from the Department of Justice at least partly out of concern that the [Durham] investigative team is being pressed for political reasons to produce a report before its work is done.
So, you quit rather than participate in a politicized investigation. That's great, but the politicized investigation now has 1 less obstacle in its way.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)maxsolomon
(33,449 posts)The entire purpose of Durham's investigation is to cast doubt on the FBI's. That's already been accomplished; in fact the FBI's has been summarily dismissed.
Her principled action will be lost in the din of horseshit coming out of the WH, the DOJ, and the RWNM.