Immediately after the New York Times published a report that Attorney General Bill Barr had tapped John Durham, a longtime Justice Department official who was nominated by President Trump to be the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, and confirmed by Congress, to lead the investigation into the origins of the FBI's Russia probe, the liberal freakout began.
Headlines like "Barr orders third investigation of Trump's crazy theory about the FBI," and "Bill Barr Is A Wartime Consigliere," and "AG Barr launches probe into Russia investigation origins, stoking Trump's ‘spying’ conspiracy theory," were seen from liberal bloggers, and the mainstream media headlines were more subtle, to the point where it appears some, like CNN were attempting to intimidate the federal prosecutor tapped by Barr.
Here is CNN's promotional on Twitter: "A federal prosecutor's "apolitical" reputation is on the line as he helps Attorney General Barr review the origins of the Russia investigation."
Is that a subtle threat to destroy Durham's "apolitical" reputation if he concludes and prosecutes high level former intelligence officials under Obama?
More over-the-top meltdowns by the mainstream media can be seen at RedState.
The reason that liberals, Democrats, the MSM and former Obama officials are freaking out is because Durham is well known for exposing FBI and CIA corruption, via The Daily Signal:
He examined whether two Boston mob figures, Bulger and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi, had corrupted the FBI agents whom they served as informants.
Durham’s investigation led to a 10-year prison sentence for retired FBI agent John Connolly Jr., found guilty of helping the two gangsters avoid prosecution.
As part of this investigation, Durham produced documents showing four men had been framed by FBI agents and convicted of murder in the 1960s. Two died in prison, but two others won a $100 million civil judgment against the Justice Department.
Durham also led probes into the CIA's handling of terror detainees, and led some of the biggest public corruption cases in Connecticut.
DURHAM HAS BEEN PART OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS FOR MONTHS, NOT WEEKS
As part of the media's coverage of Barr tapping Durham to "investigate the investigators," they claimed that Durham has been working on this for "weeks," but according to Congressional transcripts of their interview with former top counsel for the FBI, James Baker, we see that Durham has been involved in investigating some of these issues for more than eight months.
Here is how CNN phrased it: "CNN reported Monday that Durham has already been working on the internal review for weeks, according to a source familiar with the matter....." other media outlets asserted the same thing.
Reports also came out in a flurry on Tuesday showing that AG Barr is also working in close coordination with CIA Director Gina Haskell, and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dan Coats. Furthermore, Durham's review is much wider than just the FISA process and he is working directly with the DOJ's Inspector General's office.
In response to a Twitter thread from White House Correspondent, Kevin Corke, I ran across a screen shot claiming that during congressional testimony back in October 2018, John Durham was directly named as already being involved in an "ongoing investigation."
Looking at the exchanges beforehand shows us exactly what Durham was investigating more than eight months ago, in relation to the origins of the Russia probe and the use of the unverified Steele dossier that was used to obtain FISC warrants to spy on Carter Page, and the Trump campaign.
Rep. Jim Jordan was asking Baker about his contacts with Mother Jones' writer David Corn, who heavily promoted the Steele dossier, claiming inside sources.
That exchange is quoted below from page 36 of the PDF:
Mr. Jordan. How about in -- I think you probably know where I'm headed -- how about leading up to just prior to the election of -- Presidential election of 2016, how many times did you talk with David Corn in the weeks and months prior to election day?
Mr. Baker. I don't remember.
Mr. Jordan. Is it fair to say you did?
Mr. Baker. Yes, I did, but I just don't remember how many.
Mr. Jordan. And did -- so did you talk to Mr. Corn about anything that the FBI was working on, specifically the now infamous Steele dossier?
Mr. Levin. One second.
[Discussion off the record.] Mr. Levin. I'm sorry, I'm going to cut -- not let him answer these questions right now. You may or may not know, he's been the subject of a leak investigation which is still -- a criminal leak investigation that's still active at the Justice Department. So I am cutting off --
Mr. Jordan. Can you speak more in the mike there?
Mr. Levin. I'm sorry. I'm cutting off any discussion about conversations with reporters.
Mr. Jordan. Based on --
Mr. Meadows. You're saying he's under criminal investigation? That's why you're not letting him answer?
Mr. Levin. Yes.
Now, via the Hartford Courant, we see the reason why Durham was chosen, directly relating to his federal investigation into Obama's intelligence officials leaking classified information to the press.
One official said Durham’s leak investigation did not grow into the probe of the legal underpinning of the FBI’s Russia investigation. Rather, the official said Durham was chosen for because of his knowledge of the Russia inquiry gained through the leak investigation and his previous experience investigating the Central Intelligence Agency.
Emphasis mine.
Former South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who served on the House Intelligence Committee, tells Sean Hannity, "So whoever’s investigating this, tell them to look for emails between Brennan and Comey in December 2016." That is a reference to former CIA director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey. (That is heard toward the end of the interview)
CONNECTING THE DOTS - THEY ARE GOING FOR THE 'HIGH HANGING FRUIT'
Durham was chosen because of his familiarity with the evidence from his federal leak investigation, which has been ongoing for more than eight months, as detailed in Baker's congressional testimony. Durham was also chosen because of his "previous experience" investigating the CIA. Gowdy is highlighting specific emails, that he has seen already in his former position on the House Intelligence Committee, between the Obama-era CIA Director and former FBI director.
In a followup interview Gowdy stated "That's a pretty easy thing to sort out, who insisted that the dossier or the unverified material from Chris Steele be included. But ... sometimes when you have two people, I can tell from you having been in the courtroom, sometimes when people are blaming each other, they are both right. It's both of them. And I think it's interesting Brennan and Comey right now, the only thing they seem to share is a hatred for Donald Trump. It's going to be interesting if they begin to turn on one another. I've seen the document. I'm not going to describe it any more than that, Comey's got a better argument than Brennan based on what I have seen."
A high-level dispute over which senior government officials pushed the unverified Steele dossier amid efforts to surveil the Trump campaign has broken out into the open again, after it emerged that Attorney General William Barr appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if the FBI and DOJ's actions were "lawful and appropriate."
Sources familiar with the records told Fox News that a late-2016 email chain indicated then-FBI Director James Comey told bureau subordinates that then-CIA Director John Brennan insisted the dossier be included in the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference, known as the ICA.
It is also publicly known that Durham is working in coordination with the DOJ Inspector General, Michael Horowitz's office. Horowitz is due to release his report on the Obama-era Intel officials actions during the 2016 election and the possible FISA court abuses in using the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant, and multiple renewals of that warrant, to spy on the Trump campaign.
It appears predictions of the AG, and the different groups and prosecutors investigating multiple areas of the origins of the Russia probe directly relating to the "collusion delusion" Mueller probe of the Trump campaign, that investigators and prosecutors would go for the "low hanging fruit," rather than the top echelon of the Obama-era intelligence agencies, may have been premature.
BOTTOM LINE
The DOJ has jumped right over the low hanging fruit and are on a trajectory to take down the high hanging fruit, specifically John Brennan and James Comey, at least to start with.
Which begs the question: How far up the ladder can they connect the dots to?
Below former federal prosecutor and former legal counsel for the FISA Court, Joe diGenova, along with Rep. Jim Jordan, join Laura Ingraham to discuss these latest developments, as Ingraham shows a clip of Brennan's reaction where he is spinning like mad after the news about Durham's appointment broke.
Below that video is Sean Hannity explaining how the Deep State players that are in the crosshairs are now starting to turn against each other publicly.
ONGOING FUNDRAISER:Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.
So ANP is accepting reader donations. PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:
