Posted on 05/13/2019 5:21:42 PM PDT by springwater13
Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.
John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.
His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russias election interference and Trump associates.
The departments inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced.
Additionally on Capitol Hill, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he, too, intends to review aspects of law enforcements work in the coming months. And Republicans conducted their own inquiries when they controlled the House, including publicizing details of the F.B.I.s wiretap use.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
THAT just totally cut me the wrong way.
Court disordered by FIB Cop fraud perhaps.
Pure Weasel Talk.
Bump
Sounds like the right guy for the job. Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Durham_(lawyer)
Of course there is no such this as court ordered surveillance. There is court APPROVED surveillance but that is illegal when the FBI submits fake evidence to get the approval.
“....I dont believe ........”
I do believe that culprits will be identified and that some heads will roll. I do believe that some of the culprits will not be punished because sufficient evidence will not be forthcoming. Too much time has passed and evidence is probably being destroyed as we speak. But all in all, I believe justice will be done - for a change!!
What the hell does this mean?
Is he authorized to use the powers of a grand jury or is he not?
He looks like the guy who makes my holsters here in town.
‘Cep he needs a hat.
Just think... Real comfort lies in knowing OUR every unlawful action would result in a quick and swift prosecution! No sarcasm intended.
For fellow travelers on the left the article will reassure them that there is no there, there. To us conservatives the article is useful, despite its omissions and excursions, when read in Pari materia with the interview of former FBI Council Baker, to layout in advance the pattern of the defense.
Every inference that can be drawn favorable to the FBI will be drawn, every inference unfavorable to the FBI will be labeled a partisan conspiracy, every unprecedented breach of FBI protocol will be justified by supposed need, and every bad motive, even though articulated in a written document by an FBI agent or Obama appointee, will be rehabilitated extending the benefit of the doubt, that is, demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt even when the matter is considered in a political but not a legal context.
Much emphasis will be placed on the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any crimes alleged by the FBI, but when the question of the initiation of the Russian investigation is considered, the standard will be entirely relaxed, it will be whether there was reason at all to investigate.
In this fashion the political and the legal will be conflated making it difficult for the public to disentangle these matters or properly apply legal presumptions. We see that in real time as the standard of impeachment which the Constitution confines to treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors is being perverted by leading Democrats to whatever Congress says it is. So the legal or constitutional definitional requirement for impeachment is cast aside in favor of a political result but, in contrast, in the matter of the political judgment of the actions and motives of the FBI, more stringent legal standards will no doubt be applied by the likes of The New York Times.
Legal reasoning should apply to legal matters, political judgments to political questions. When legal rubs up against political, the difference should be made crystal clear so the judgment of the public will not manipulated.
Thanks I just saw it.
Fixed limk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Durham_(lawyer)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-fed-sentenced-for-tipping-mobsters/
A former FBI agent, John Joseph Connolly, who had been credited with helping to cripple the New England Mafia was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison Monday for protecting his top mob informants, including tipping them off to their indictments.
Special U.S. Attorney John Durham had urged the judge Monday to impose a sentence that would show the public “there are no special rules for those people who are well connected.”
“It should tell the public that there is no person who is above the law,” he said.
Durham scoffed at Connolly’s claims that he didn’t realize while he was the FBI’s handler for Flemmi and Bulger that they were committing serious crimes, including murder.
I figured you did. This seems to be pretty big.
JOHN J CONNOLLY
Register Number: 22928-038
Age: 78
Race: White
Sex: Male
Released On: 06/28/2011
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/john-connolly
John Henry Durham (born 1950)[1][2] is the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut. He is best known for leading an inquiry into allegations that FBI agents and Boston police had ties with the mob[3] and his appointment as special prosecutor regarding the 2005 CIA interrogation tapes destruction.[1] On November 1, 2017, he was nominated by President Donald Trump to be Connecticut's next U.S. Attorney.[4] On February 15, 2018, his nomination to be the United States Attorney was confirmed by voice vote. He was sworn in on February 22, 2018.
Might be a good guy. At least not apparently involved in the Russian thing. Stay tuned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.