One is supposed to believe that Attorney General William Barr is in charge of the Department of Justice and that on May 14, 2019, he appointed John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, to conduct the inquiry to examine the origins of the “Trump/Russia investigation” and determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was “lawful and appropriate” (Obamagate).
To date, there is nothing to show from the Barr/Durham effort.
Judicial Watch has uncovered and published reams of material through litigation and use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That work has been a years-long effort – often fighting the Trump/Barr Justice Department to release records the American public is owed by statute. Members of Congress have released documents and reports. Most recently, Senator Lindsey Graham has finally produced something for the public’s consumption after years of talking about accountability and holding hearings. Acting ODNI Richard Grenell released dozens of Russia probe records. Again – these releases are practically “historical” in nature. They come years after the subject events. That is quite unlike the lightening-fast Intelligence Community Inspector General (phony) complaint over Ukraine that saw President Trump impeached by the House of Representatives in roughly two months. It seems like there are differing standards and timelines for “justice” in official Washington, DC.
Seasoned investigators and attorneys can take the publicly available records and assemble sufficient facts, documentation and evidence to meet the legal threshold (“probable cause”) for successfully presenting a bill of indictment to a grand jury. Like most discretionary decisions and exercises of governmental power, it really comes down to political will. Do Barr and/or Durham have the stomach to seek the indictment of people like James Comey, John Brennan, Andy McCabe and (many) others?
Indictments have a way of getting a target’s attention. They focus the mind. Perhaps the indictment of certain key persons would result in a sudden and compelling desire for them to be forthright and cooperative with prosecutors? Various former government officials may wish to explain what really happened and who really knew what and when. Lesser characters on the DC stage may seek greater billing or not be happy with their role as a patsy. No doubt others would resort to having “no specific recollection at this time.” That’s OK. Prosecutors can still get to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, even with faulty memories.
So-called “journalists” may wish to return to their lost arts and pursue stories previously dropped down the Memory Hole. There might just be a rush to set the record straight and expel the miasma of deception, disinformation, and distraction.
Ask yourself why AG Barr fights Judicial Watch in virtually every FOIA lawsuit seeking records over the Obamagate coup plot. Why does he permit the FBI to claim in court that their agents’ text messages on their government phones are not government records? That’s insultingly preposterous – but it is the Justice Department’s position. Your tax dollars in action.
One thing is for certain: Should Barr/Durham not bring indictments and go to trial against the officials who organized the coup against President Trump, then the United States will become a “failed state.” The compromised justice system would be held in contempt by the people it was designed to protect.
Chris Farrell is director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog. He was previously a military intelligence officer.