Political Implications of No Durham Indictments Before 3 Nov

AP Photo/Patrick Semansky
AP featured image
A sign for the Department of Justice hangs in the press briefing room Thursday, April 18, 2019, in Washington, at the Justice Department. Attorney General William Barr was to speak about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report during a news conference. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)


Redstate colleague Shipwreckcrew has been on fire over the past few days speculating on the likely legal rationale for delays in the much-anticipated indictments of Spygate principals. On Sunday, Src ruminated on the distinct possibility that a DoJ filing in the Flynn case on 24 Sep documenting an interview with FBI Special Agent William Barnett was the reason for holding off on indictments due to revelations about potentially egregious misconduct of Mueller’s Special Counsel Office. And on Monday, Src speculated further about Agent Barnett’s interview that the infamous “insurance policy” was indeed the opening of the Crossfire Razor investigation on LTG Flynn after the 2016 election.

The new information in Barnett’s interview created new avenues warranting further investigation by US Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins (and more) of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign in 2016. But are there other Spygate-related revelations to come that would provide a rationale for further Durham investigation on other aspects of Spygate? Here is the spin from the NY Times on 24 Sep on an explosive topic – Durham’s examination of evidence from the lengthy DoJ investigation of the Clinton Foundation:

It turns out that Mr. Durham also focused attention on certain political enemies of Mr. Trump: the Clintons.

Mr. Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut assigned by Mr. Barr to review the Russia inquiry, has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Durham’s team members have suggested to others that they are comparing the two investigations as well as examining whether investigators in the Russia inquiry flouted laws or policies.


Note that last sentence, which implies that Durham team members are talking to outside parties. That’s the usual “unnamed sources” baloney that we’ve come to expect (and flatly disregard) from the likes of the NY Times and other legacy media. There have been no known leaks from the Durham investigation since its inception. Why leaks now? Because there STILL haven’t been any, and the Times’ assertion is false – or at best a half-truth. The half-truth is that Durham is looking into the Clinton Foundation, but not for the reasons alleged in the article. Rather, the complete truth is that Durham’s team is almost certainly investigating direct Clinton ties to Spygate. The Times agit-prop team is trying to spin that bombshell in the run-up to the 3 November election in hopes that Joe Biden can steal the election and Durham’s investigation can be buried once and for all (and the complicity of the NY Times and other legacy media in the Spygate coup conveniently “forgotten”). And the whole truth – that Durham is tying the Clintons directly to Spygate – would be a major reason for delaying indictments until that final piece of Spygate is locked into place, NOT the Times’ spin that Durham’s investigation is entirely political.

Trump supporters and sympathetic media figures have been frustrated with the absence of Spygate-related indictments to date. However, Attorney General Barr has given us clues as to the real objective of the Durham investigation, upon which Barr is receiving regular briefings from Durham. He has repeatedly signaled that he expects Durham to, paraphrasing, “go where the evidence takes him,” and that anyone who broke the law will be prosecuted if the evidence warrants it. There is already much evidence on the public record about individuals involved in Spygate perjuring themselves, making false statements, and lying to Congress (e.g., Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, McCabe, and others). Yet, no indictments have been brought against INDIVIDUALS. That fact would tend to confirm speculation that Durham is instead pursuing a wide-ranging conspiracy charge involving many if not all participants, which would be a main reason for the delay. And with the Clintons now being tied into Spygate, the development of prosecutable evidence for the entire conspiracy will take additional time.


Furthermore, there would be additional grounds for a RICO investigation of the Spygate participants by tying in Clinton and Democrat National Committee money that enabled the conspiracy – also requiring time to develop. And finally, with the Clintons now tied into Spygate, Durham could seat grand juries in other jurisdictions besides Democrat-controlled New York, Washington DC, and Northern Virginia to obtain the necessary indictments. All this takes time.

The preceding provides some of the potential legal reasons for the delay in indictments, but what are the political implications? President Trump has little to gain politically with indictments before 3 November. Trump voters are going to vote for him regardless of when the indictments drop. Indictments now would be spun a completely political by the Democrat-media complex and could convince a few fence-sitting voters to go with Biden. Arguments could be made that indictments would “turn off” Biden voters and thus benefit the President politically, but that assumes that the media would actually give those indictments proper – and truthful – coverage, which is highly unlikely given their long-demonstrated anti-Trump biases.

Indictments now would also be spun by Democrats as a calculated political distraction from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings-to-come on US Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney-Barrett. The better political optics for Republicans would be to not muddy the political waters with a couple of individual Spygate indictments and let the Democrats make fools of themselves in public hearings, just as they’ve already begun to do after Saturday’s announcement of her nomination.


Finally, President Trump has not been clamoring for Spygate-related indictments per se in his recent campaign appearances, which one would think would happen if he had determined that there was political benefit in doing so. That is a pretty good tell, as he appears to be relaxed and energized on the campaign trail and having the time of his life. If he was worried about the lack of indictments, he would be banging that drum.


  • There are good reasons for Durham delaying indictments: Mueller SCO criminality and direct Clinton ties to Spygate.
  • Durham is almost certainly pursuing conspiracy and RICO charges against the Spygate conspirators and their funders.
  • The political implications of deferring indictments until after 3 November could actually favor the President.
  • As a chaser, a lack of indictments does not preclude a guilty plea or two before 3 November. That’s entirely possible, too.

The end.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos