20 May 22
On day three of the Durham clean-up/cover-up operation, the analysis indicating that a carve-out for FBI General Counsel Jim Baker’s soft landing was confirmed. I first reported the carve-out vector in a social media post while running down claims that someone other than former Attorney General William Barr appointed John Durham as Special Counsel and for which there is no substantiating evidence.
On 18 Apr 22, I said the following, which was revisited in the 18 Apr 22 article linked below [#2] [emphasis added],
According to available evidence, I think there is substantial documentation to flip the script here and suggest exactly what I’m saying Durham is doing – covering up. By that, I mean that Durham appears to be carving out a “criminal leak investigation” as a process crime to manage the fallout from something unavoidable, which is Baker’s role. That carve-out amounts to a mere slap on the wrist for Baker.
Moreover, we have this addressed to Barr from Doug Collins and he cites the genesis of the Baker investigation, “In addition to the disclosures noted in the Summary, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut began conducting a criminal investigation into former FBI General Counsel James Baker for leaking information to reporters.4″ Taking note of the “4” footnote, it ties back to the same transcript that Tore posted. Full circle.
They’re carving-out a soft landing spot for Baker. Durham was appointed by Barr. Durham’s appointment was a review that turned into a criminal investigation that was subsequent to Baker’s carve-out. Durham is the cover-up operation.Political Moonshine
Now consider the reporting from Techno Fog relative to Day three of the Michael Sussmann trial [emphasis added],
Day 3 of the Sussmann trial –
Baker testifies he is 100% certain that Sussmann lied.
And – how Sussmann set up Baker with the New York Times to spur interest in the Alfa Bank hoax.Techno Fog
Yesterday’s article provided a broader glimpse of the general clean-up/cover-up exit plan by painting a picture depicting how “Clinton duped ’em all” and thus causing the FBI to be set-up as a tool being leveraged by a deceitful political campaign. In short, it’s not the FBI’s fault and neither is it the fault of anyone working there; including James Baker, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, Dana Boente, et al.
As long warned, there will be no prosecution of FBI and DOJ officials as Durham’s scope is limited to private citizens and entities.
Day three of the Sussmann trial extended that strategy directly to the FBI’s James Baker as a function of the carve-out analysis and thus confirming it with direct testimony.
Techno Fog’s full reporting on Day three can be read here.
The warnings about Durham draw back on a long timeline and have been numerous despite few willing to heed them. I wrote this on 01 Jan 20,
The corruption flowed directly out of the Obama White House and it implicates all of the usual suspects I’ve long identified as being unquestionably engaged in the mode of self-preservation, which conflicts with the broader aspects of the Barr/Durham effort focused on institutional preservation. Realistically, the outcome will likely be somewhere in the middle because of what I referenced above…If it were all exposed, it would destroy the nation. They’ll expose ‘just enough.’Political Moonshine
I would urge caution here and for these admittedly pessimistic but factually grounded reasons. For one, investigations are opened for one of two purposes: a) to reveal crimes and prosecute crimes -or- b) to conceal crimes and then seal away evidence of those crimes.
For another and with the ultimate authority residing in Barr (Durham), he/they will have the latitude to serve the Republic and undo a long timeline of treason and criminality resulting in a second Trump term -or- adhering to institutional preservation and complying with the Deep State by sealing away the evidence of wrongdoing against Trump.
How confident in the special prosecutor process are you? What’s the track record like? You a Bob Mueller fan? He was a special prosecutor. Special prosecutor is a body with a figurehead and in the case of Mueller, it was Andrew Weissman who running both the team and, by de facto status, the DOJ during all of the Mueller probe. Muller sat and absorbed oxygen before embarrassing himself on a national stage and Jeff Sessions had recused himself.
What would you get with a Durham probe? To whom would Durham report in a Biden administration? Who will be Biden’s AG? Is there enough time to preclude Durham having to report to a Biden administration? Will they drag it out over years to be eventually fruitless, like with everything else?
Just as easily as Andrew Weissmann whipped up a fake impeachment case in one direction, Barr/Durham could whip up a fake result in the other. How? Same old junk – with an intentionally impotent investigation coupled to a deliberately late result. It would, however, be one that would vacuum up all the evidence to seal it away for a long time.Political Moonshine
For further evidence of an effort going down the line of institutional preservation and protecting the FBI/DOJ; and just to throw fuel onto the Durham dumpster fire, consider this extract from The Federalist and how Durham failed to act before a known statute of limitations was permitted to expire. Then ask yourself if you really believe that John Durham is giving a single grain of fidelity to any of this. I’ll tell you and resolutely so that the answer to that question is “no.”
The analysis was on the mark two years ago. The analysis is on the mark today. Durham is the clean-up and cover-up operation and the evidence for it stacks to the moon.
Here is the slate of recent work detailing the Durham Special Counsel:
- Durham: Deflection and Clean Up or Delivery of Justice?
- An Evidenced Reminder to Temper Expectations About Durham – He’s the Clean-up and Cover-up Operation
- Clinton Duped ‘Em All! The Fraud Extends to Durham in Flimsy but Clear Cover-up and Clean-up Strategy: Days 1 and 2