Speculation on Reasons Behind Why Durham’s Chief Deputy Resigned

Discussion of the Garrity rule and need to develop a Garrity file and how it relates to the Durham investigation.

I tried to excerpt and string together the key parts of this article for skimmers, but it is necessary to read the whole articular for a a complete understanding.

“In Garrity v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that police officers under investigation for misconduct could not be compelled to answer questions by investigators, and have their answers used against them in a later criminal prosecution if the officers were told they would be suspended or fired from their jobs if they asserted their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.”

sundance uses his special knowledge to read the tea leaves differently. They’re probably both wrong.

Durham DC Investigative “Functionary” Returns to Private Sector Work…

Posted on September 11, 2020 by sundance

Stories of a top aide to USAO John Durham, Nora Dannehy (good Irish family), leaving the investigative unit have hit the media narrative cycle. However, here’s a slightly different perspective about her departure you won’t see anywhere else.

CONNECTICUT – Federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy, a top aide to U.S. Attorney John H. Durham in his Russia investigation, has quietly resigned from the U.S. Justice Department probe – at least partly out of concern that the investigative team is being pressed for political reasons to produce a report before its work is done, colleagues said. (read more)

That highlighted narrative segment is horse-pucky.

Unbeknownst to Ms. Dannehy, we met, we crossed paths in DC. It was an serendipitous outcome of putting my physical presence in a position to interact. From our encounter Ms. Dannehy seemed to be a functionary of the investigative process; located in DC as an outcome of her task assignment.

Dannehy, very familiar with the DC national security networks; and carrying a top-secret clearance level; had a role to play where she reached into compartmented silos, retrieved information, conducted interviews and then sent the raw data along with summaries back up the investigative pipeline. Ergo, she seemed to be an investigative “functionary.”

Although she was/is obviously a badge carrying member of the Orange-Man-Bad committee (most of them cannot hide that inherent disposition), she seemed competent and detached emotionally from the work. That said, obviously this ‘Durham’ investigation touches on several ‘third-rails’ that could negatively impact the financial prospects of any DC insider if their assigned role undermined the position of the administrative state that functions to pay the network. Did that play a role? If I were a betting man….

♦ Here’s the way it looks to me. The Durham probe, actually more like the Aldenberg probe, has slightly shifted direction. Additional inquires are now being made into the Weissmann/Mueller special counsel conduct. That explains why the ‘Woods File’ story surfaced; and that explains why the iPhone scrubbing FOIA info was produced; it’s an insiders control-game and it continues.

With any slight shift toward questioning the unquestionable, stuff happens. Mueller, and his DC enabled career of “public service”, is a protected entity (a third rail of sorts). Any shift into the disposition of that enterprise is a disconcerting and troubling shift for all of those who operate within the DC administrative state.

It’s a weird inside the bubble dynamic. Any review of the individual elements within the bubble brings out a certain level of defensive angst from every element inside the bubble. The system protects itself. Any slight defect or investigative penetration of the membrane is considered a risk. [Think: ‘first rule of fight club‘ etc.]

If, as I suspect, a series of investigative paths starts to merge upon the operation of the special counsel, any networked official who is dependent on the system is going to want to avoid participating…. Especially if their private sector financial attachment is connected to their ability to reenter the bubble to engage the trough; just like Ms. Dannehy.

In this scenario a bail-out from assignment only reflects an individual choosing to stop traveling in the rabbit hole out of a sense of self-preservation. That outlook doesn’t define any time-frame within the investigation; nor does it attribute a coming interim report as a consequence of the investigative travels so far. It’s simply a functionary making a decision to exit and retain private sector access to the same system. Nothing more.

Warmest best.

PS. Hello fellas.

Every lawyer working for the United States Government must be viewed with at least *some* suspicion.Of course not all of them are subversive Maoists but many of them are...and many of the ones who are are very subtle and underhanded about their subversive attitude.

Sounds reasonable...good article! Thanks!

If indictments are imminent, this is generally the point you would expect the “filter team” to depart.

If indictments are imminent there’s no need for an interim report.

Something doesn’t add up.

Could it possibly be boiled down to; She wanted to delay any resolution until well after the Election so that President Trump’s campaign would not benefit by the likely outcome?

She was forced to abandon her customary Slow-Walking of the investigation, and is now showing personal umbrage of a dedicated public servant now ‘blocked’ in her purely professional goals.

Thanks. Actually good supposition.

Notice how the Democrats are starting to saturate with articles that Barr must play by the “high moral ground” of the Justice Department and not stoop to politics? Which is really saying Justice must not do as we do, but do as we say....Somehow, I think Barr is smart enough to separate out the BS...

Thanks for the explanation. Now I am reassured that I would never have made it through any aw school and became a simple soldier.

“I noted on Twitter earlier that when she left DOJ in 2010, she was at the 19-year mark, which meant that her DOJ pension had not yet fully vested”

This just isn’t true.
To be vested (eligible to receive your retirement benefits from the Basic Benefit plan if you leave Federal service before retiring), you must have at least 5 years of creditable civilian service.

The rest is just more fodder piled on top of a false assertion.

Did she simply need to hit 20 years to reach a threshold for getting a higher monthly pension payment than she would get otherwise?

She wouldn’t be the first person to go back into government service to add a year or so to the pension file, especially if she knew she would get a good private sector gig for a couple years after that to tide her over until she really does want to retire from working.

It’s possible she would receive an ever so slightly higher pension after 20 years of service, based upon a multiplier of 1.1 % of avg annual salary times years of services rather than the basic 1.0 % avg salary times years of service. That is a whole lot different from being vested.

Maybe. I had a DC relative who needed one more year. He just cheated with false paperwork and retired a year early. Bragged about it too.

‘
No Commentary on the Judgement of yet ANOTHER Investigation with a Never Trumper running things?

See Peter Strzok.

See Fraud Huber.

See Andrew Weissmann.

Tom Fitton said the Durham Investigation is a “Sham Investigation.”

‘

Really good explanation of what may be happening

I love Fitton but I believe he’s wrong on Durham. Again we are all weary of this drag out of yet another investigation but Adam Housley who’s been accurately reporting on this for a long time just tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1305195585830440962?s=21
Remember when everyone was saying Brennan wasn’t a target and I told you they were lying. Just remember that. Nothing else to report.

Because heads are gonna roll and her friends will be taken down