I love me some Emerald Robinson. She's one of my favorite reads right now, especially when she shreds RINOs and anti-Trumpers with a wood chipper. I think she's incredibly talented, and her writing is witty and cutting. She's what I used to like about Ann Coulter before she became a RINO Romney stooge.
However, I completely disagree with her latest piece on the Durham investigation. She takes the emotional doomer perspective of "nothing's happening" and "what's taking so long!!", while I take the adult, common sense and rational perspective of understanding that Durham is piercing the veil of privileged materials in the most powerful deep-state law firms in the country, investigating DOJ and intelligence agencies, dealing with the CCP virus lock-downs which affect scheduling and interviews, interviewing individuals in other countries, AND investigating the Mueller investigation and the Clinton Campaign, just to name a few.
Mr. Durham, please take all the time you need, sir. Here's Robinson's first problem:
Once again, we see the conservative pundit class go bananas over the new motion filings from the Durham investigation in the last few days. Suddenly, everybody at Fox News is “expecting more indictments” at any moment! (How did that turn out for Sean Hannity and Dan Bongino the last time?) Suddenly, everybody is supposed to be excited that Durham’s crack team finally figured out spying activities against Donald Trump that occurred in July 2016.
Why in the hell is she watching Fox News? If you still watch Fox News, you have other issues. Why would you be a consumer to an outlet who took part in the 2020 election coup? Seriously, what's wrong with you?
"But DC, I just watch Cucker!!" Cool. You may enjoy watching anti-Trump leftists who spreads lies about Trump to his media pals, blames J6 on President Trump, and is pals with Hunter Biden, but I'll take a hard pass. The only one worth a damn on Fox News is Mark Levin, and you can listen to him on his radio show.
Durham didn't just figure out those spying activities after six years. That's ridiculous to say, and I'm not quite sure of her angle here. Durham knows not only about the spying, but a hell of a lot more than any of us know. He knows about it because of the time he's been taking investigating everything.
Let me use the proper analogy here. It’s like going back to your old ex-boyfriend who never treated you well because he called you once over the holidays. You know that it’s going to end badly before you even call him back — but you’re lonely and you can’t help yourself. It’s a troubled and abusive relationship — the one between FBI Special Counsel John Durham and American voters who want justice for the Russia Hoax. I don’t want to see you get your feelings hurt.
That's a horrible analogy. There are some who've publicly stated that there "is no Durham investigation." A few indictments later, the goalposts moved to "he's just protecting the FBI and DOJ." This doomer lunacy that "nothing's happening" is completely unwarranted, especially after you've been proven wrong on multiple fronts, including your main premise of "there's no investigation."
If Durham were really protecting the FBI and DOJ, he would have already wrapped this thing up. I mean, think about it. Why would he keep going? Instead, we're going on year five of his investigation (remember, he was appointed by Jeff Sessions to hunt down the leaks). You see "nothing's happening"; I see incredible methodical persistence that will pay dividends in trials.
Let me explain why you’re probably being played again.
I don't watch Fox News, so I'm not getting played.
One point that will be ignored by the doomers, big investigations seemingly take forever. Kash Patel said the Durham investigation is completely normal time-wise with other major investigations.
Here's an example off the top of my head to make this point: California State Senator Leland Yee who was convicted of public corruption, gun trafficking, and a bunch of other goodies. He's a true Democrat.
The federal investigation that snared state Sen. Leland Yee and 25 others in a wide-ranging racketeering and corruption case was triggered by the 2006 slaying of San Francisco businessman and tong leader Allen Leung.
He was indicted in 2014 and convicted in 2016. The investigation started in 2006, almost ten years before conviction. Ten years for an investigation that wasn't anywhere near as serious or complex as #Obamagate and Spygate. The investigation also rolled up twenty-five others.
We already have three indictments, including one guilty plea from Kevin Clinesmith. The doomer's Pavlovian response is "yeah, but he received no prison time, and he got his law license back!"
Regarding his law license, that has absolutely nothing to do with Durham. Take it up with the Bar Association. Sure, we wanted more blood, but we have no idea what Clinesmith did with Durham. Shipwreckedcrew, who has twenty-two years of experience as a federal prosecutor, touched on Clinesmith:
Just because Clinesmeth pled guilty and has been sentenced does not mean his role in this drama is over. I’m certain he cooperated fully and has testified before the Grand Jury. He is a critical piece of the puzzle not because of anything he did, but because he was a witness to things more important players said and did from the origin of Crossfire Hurricane right up to the end. The Special Agents working the investigation rotated in and out, but Clinesmith was assigned to FBI HQ, and he didn’t have any other position to go back to. He was there for the entirety of the Special Counsel Office’s work. The precious little footnote in the Mueller Report went out of its way to point out “We found him here when we took over, like a lost little kitten, and we kept him around. But he wasn’t one of us.” But he was in the room when the others were talking, and he heard knew what they decided to do — and not do. That’s why he’s valuable to Durham still.
Can you appreciate how Durham is using Clinesmith, or would you rather Durham hit him with more charges, sent up the river, and that's it from him because it will make you feel better? I'd rather he continue singing like a little songbird to avoid other charges that are likely in Durham's pocket.
Robinson:
Why should it suddenly be exciting to people to hear, one more time, that Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama) spied on Donald Trump’s campaign? Didn’t we know this already? Haven’t we known this for almost six years?
Ask yourself: why would it take Durham more than 3 years to file these indictments?
Even libtards who hate Durham say he runs a leak-proof operation. Nothing comes out of that office, and the only information we have is from what Durham has disclosed through speaking indictments and filings, and court filings from the Alfa Bank lawsuit (along with the other sources, like declassified Congressional investigations, etc).
We have no idea what Durham has. Nobody does. Just because he added the latest goodies in a conflict resolution filing a few days ago doesn't mean he just learned this information a few days ago. Just because we now learned about it doesn't mean Durham just did as well. Robinson is pretty smart, so why would she make such an obviously stupid point?
Why has Democrat super attorney Marc Elias not been indicted yet? Why was the Democrat snakepit law-firm Perkins Coie allowed enough time to sever itself from Marc Elias last year (on August 22) while Durham was going over their billing records before filing charges (on September 16) against Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann? Let me hazard a guess. It’s probably because Elias is absolutely essential to Democrat efforts to stop election integrity laws in various swing states across America. In other words, he’s too valuable to the Biden Administration to be indicted right now. Maybe after the midterms.
Durham did the unthinkable: he obtained privileged materials from Perkins Coie, and as Shipwreckedcrew says, they likely did this and bounced Elias and Sussmann to avoid being a target for prosecution. Yet, somehow, Robinson spins this as Durham is protecting Elias. I simply can't get there.
Regarding the privileged materials, Shipwreckedcrew puts on a clinic in his Sussmann article. Short snippet:
The indictment alleges that the DNC, the Clinton Campaign, and Tech Executive-1 were all clients of the Perkins Coie firm for whom Sussman and others did legal work. To one degree or another, the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work-Product privileges would have applied to many/most of the records that Durham references in the indictment. The “privilege” belongs to the clients. Waiving privilege in order to show cooperation with Durham was not something that Perkins Coie could do on its own — the clients had the legal right to assert the privilege and attempt to keep the records out of Durham’s hands.
In no universe I can imagine would the DNC, Clinton Campaign, and/or Tech Executive-1 have waived Attorney-Client privilege and allowed Perkins Coie to turn over privileged documents and communications.
And:
On what basis then was it likely determined by a court that the attorney-client privilege did not apply and Perkins Coie had to disclose the records? That is the proverbial “$64,000 Question” that we won’t know the answer to for some time. But the most likely justification for ordering production of the records to Durham was the “crime-fraud” exception to the Attorney-Client privilege.
Simply stated, the exception applies when the communications or records at issue involve a future crime or fraud under consideration or a crime or fraud that is currently underway and continuing. The focus of the inquiry is on the client’s intent, not the attorney’s intent. The attorney-client privilege will be negated by the crime-fraud exception regardless of whether the attorney is aware of, or involved in, the client’s crime or fraud.
Noteworthy is the fact that the exception only applies, and records or communications are not protected by the privilege, if the CLIENT is engaged in planning future crimes or frauds, or is seeking legal assistance in ongoing crimes or frauds.
That means that if Durham obtained privileged records on the basis of the crime-fraud exception, whatever court sustained his subpoena would have done so because Durham demonstrated to the court’s satisfaction that the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1 were themselves engaged in the criminal conduct along with Sussmann, their attorney.
And maybe the DNC too. Think about that.
Pretty amazing. After you read the rest about privileged materials in his article, does this sound like someone who's protecting the criminals? Do you believe that obtaining these privileged materials from Perkins Coie was a walk in the park, and all the conspirators are breathing a sigh of relief because they know Johnny has their back?
Robinson then makes the point that since Jake Sullivan hasn't been indicted, he never will be. Fact: every single person in history who has ever been indicted at one point wasn't. We're not born indicted, therefore, one isn't indicted before they are. I'm not sure how I can distill that idiocy any further.
No worries though, when Sullivan resigns and is indicted, Robinson and the other doomers will shift their narrative. It's what they do because they emotionally commit to their false premises.
Robinson posits this brilliance:
He wants his investigation to run as long as possible. Why would he want to do that?
My own theory is simple: Durham exists so that the FBI can regain some credit with the American public (“hey, those Clinton people lied to us!”) while directing the media narrative away from Obama. You already see this misdirection in the corporate media headlines this week: Hillary did it. Durham exists, in other words, as a kind of insurance policy against the ambitions of the Clintons. His real goal is keep his investigation afloat through 2024. That would explain his slow, slow, slow progress. If Hillary Clinton suddenly decides to run in a primary against Biden/Harris for the 2024 ticket, then Lady Macbeth and her old campaign staff (Sussmann, Elias, Sullivan and the rest of them) will find themselves in very hot water.
If you think the Durham investigation has been making the FBI look more credible, then I really can't help you. Example:
Although Durham is alleging that Joffe abused his access to this sensitive data to find derogatory information on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign, there is no way of knowing what else he might have done with the information. In addition to those affiliated with the Clinton campaign, any number of foreign adversaries or members of the media would have been very keen to access the data themselves. The fact that the FBI and CIA apparently weren’t disturbed by Joffe’s access and his efforts to exploit that access for political purposes is equally alarming.
She concludes by making the point that Fox News gets you hooked on predictions that fall flat, and she somehow makes that Durham's fault. Fox News lies to their audience, plain and simple. For example, "sources familiar with the investigation" is not someone who knows anything that's going on with the investigation. They only have access to information that you and I have.
Miss Robinson, stop watching Fox News. They will make you dumb. Durham will continue his investigation, even if it doesn't line up with what Fox News says or what you believe the timeline for investigating the biggest criminal conspiracy in history with the most dangerous deep-staters should be.
The main difference between Robinson and myself is she's happy with indictments. I'm happy with convictions.
