[ad_1]
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“It is not clear whether Durham was able to get a full account from these sources, but he was still able to establish the details on how this unprecedented political hit job succeeded despite a lack of evidence.” You’d be forgiven for believing this sentence more at home on Ancient Aliens than among the collected works of a law professor, but Jonathan Turley is no ordinary law professor. And besides, Ancient Aliens at least claims to have evidence.
In the latest addition to his personal weblog, Turley commends former special counsel John Durham upon the conclusion of a nearly four-year, $6.5 million quest to find insidious corruption behind the Russian collusion allegations surrounding Donald Trump. While the investigation turned up nothing, Durham did pen a lengthy report and it’s this month’s selection in the Turley’s Book Club:
For those interested in the truth about the Russian collusion investigation, the Durham Report has hundreds of pages of details of the alliance of political, government and media figures behind arguably the greatest hoax in U.S. history. The only thing it does not have is an actual indictment or true accountability for the critical players in an effort to derail an American presidency.
This final thought presents a bit of a sticky wicket for Turley. Because the Department of Justice vested Durham with the power to get “an actual indictment” and seek “true accountability,” yet he never managed to find any evidence that might allow him to do any of those things. So when Turley talks about the “hundreds of pages of details,” he’s borrowing from the inimitable Lionel Hutz:
The 300+ pages of the Durham report present a whole lot of conjecture that Durham knew he could never substantiate occasionally punctuated by conjecture that Durham tried and failed to substantiate. Even Durham finds himself sheepishly walking back his whopper of a tale. After all those pages, Durham’s imagination comes up short when forced to issue recommendations, merely offering, “This report does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI….”
To borrow an analogy from Turley’s article, that’s like the NTSB penning a detailed, graphic account of the Hindenburg disaster and concluding with, “Welp. Shit happens.”
Perhaps Turley deserves a slice of credit to that extent because, unlike Durham, the professor is upfront that the report rests on “a lack of evidence.” But Turley has a theory on how to fix that and uncover all the evidence that John Durham never could!
Buried in the detailed account is a little noticed footnote stating that Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” Likewise, Durham noted that “no one at Fusion GPS … would agree to voluntarily speak with the Office” while both the DNC and Clinton campaign invoked privileges to refuse to answer certain questions.
Interesting!
Also misleading because they both, in fact, testified.
This isn’t entirely fair, as Turley acknowledges later in the piece that Elias testified at trial, but handwaves away that testimony as “strictly limited by the court.” Which is true to the extent it was limited to the precise events Turley is ranting about. Does he want Elias to share his tips for making risotto?
Congress can now use that foundation to compel cooperation from key figures in this scandal, if necessary, under a grant of immunity. The witnesses could still be prosecuted if they lie or mislead congressional investigators or commit perjury.
You know who else could’ve used a grant of immunity to compel testimony? John Durham. Maybe it slipped his mind. Maybe the reason Durham couldn’t come with any evidence for his theory wasn’t the lack of strategic grants of immunity but because there is no evidence. Who’s to say, really?
Turley should know this, of course. He might be deliberately obtuse at times to please his audience, but he must have a foot firmly based in reality that understands the difference between conspiracy theory and reality.
Even if one is willing to suspend disbelief over the latest “trust us we’re the government” press release, it ignores that fact that the FBI was accused again in 2020 of playing a role in burying the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
Or not.
The Immunity Option: How Congress Could Have the Final Say on the Russian Collusion Scandal [Jonathan Turley]
Earlier: John Durham Declares Victory And Goes Home
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
[ad_2]
