Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 11, 2021 | sundance | 138 Comments
This is interesting. In the middle of his CPAC speech President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell story about a Pennsylvania U.S. Attorney who was intending to investigate voter fraud in Philadelphia and was blocked by Attorney General Bill Barr. The excerpt is below, WATCH:
There are three U.S. Attorney Divisions in Pennsylvania: Eastern (Philly), Middle (Wilkes-Barre) and Western (Pittsburgh/Erie). Given the nature of the story as told during the speech, it would most likely be the former USAO in the Philadelphia office; that was William M. McSwain who announced his resignation on January 14, 2021.
In previous comments attributed to AG Bill Barr, he claimed to have seen no evidence of election fraud. The Atlantic Article cites Bill Barr stating to an AP journalist December 1st 2020: ” To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” and then the article covers the fallout with the White House from that AP interview.
However, there’s a big difference between not seeing election fraud and purposefully blocking a United States Attorney Office from investigating allegations of fraud with an institutional motive not to discover or see it.
REMINDER: On October 19, 2020, former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr appointed John Durham as special prosecutor under authorities provided by DOJ regulations [28 cfr 600]. However, AG Bill Barr did not tell the public at the time of the appointment. Within the original appointment, AG Barr notes the reason for doing this quietly [Page 2, Paragraph (e)]:
“Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(b), I have determined that the notification requirement … should be tolled until at least after the November 3, 2020 election because legitimate and investigative privacy concerns warrant confidentiality.“
In essence, AG Bill Barr stated he did not want to impact the 2020 presidential election with a notification to congress or the public of this appointment. While the justification for this approach is clearly within the unspoken rules of the DOJ not wanting to give the impression of interference in political elections, we must also accept these unspoken DOJ rules only flow in one direction – when Democrat party politicians need to be protected.
However, beyond the justification for not informing the public that U.S. Attorney John Durham was now empowered with special prosecutor authorities before the 2020 presidential election, there are much bigger issues that surface; and this must be accepted and discussed in its purposeful totality.
♦ Notification of the special prosecutor appointment did not surface until December 1, 2020, when AP journalist Michael Balsamo first wrote about it (SEE HERE).
Based on a recent widely-viewed article published in the Atlantic, we now know Balsamo was summoned by AG Barr to Main Justice for an informal lunch were several issues were discussed: “Barr’s betrayal came on December 1, over lunch in the attorney general’s private dining room with Michael Balsamo, a Justice Department beat reporter at the Associated Press.” (link)
The most recent headlines surround AG Bill Barr telling Mr. Balsamo: “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” thus the current narrative du jour. However, in hindsight, we can now enhance the background of that Dec. 1st meeting between AG Bill Barr and AP journalist Michael Balsamo to include the attorney general informing the AP about the appointment of John Durham as a special prosecutor. Balsamo wrote about the Durham appointment on that exact date, December 1, 2020.
The reason for drawing your attention to the timeline is to emphasize the nature of how the DOJ, in this example AG Bill Barr, coordinates with specific intent to make certain information public at certain times, while holding back information that may be adverse to DOJ interests which are often political.
Additionally, and very importantly, do not let it go without emphasis how a special prosecutor appointment would NEVER remain secret, without leaks, from personnel within the larger DOJ institution who are in close and frequent contact with their allies in the media.
Given the scope of known leaks from the DOJ, is it almost certain the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico knew of the October 19th appointment, but did not report on it because the background material was adverse to their collective interests.
Please allow me to highlight the obvious and more alarming political motive; this is where a larger understanding of duplicity becomes even more important.
♦ We find out on December 1st (after the election) that AG Bill Barr previously appointed John Durham as a special counsel to investigate criminal matters on October 19, 2020. AG Bill Barr notified the Associated Press (Michael Balsamo) and the Senate Judiciary Committee on the *exact same day. The sequence is: Barr tells the media, then Barr tells congress:
*It is critical to understand how the DOJ system operates at a political level -when they have a very specific political intent- while noting the dates of activity and the dates of notification of that activity; two very different dynamics.
Given the background of information on how Bill Barr operated as a U.S. Attorney General, we can now see the specific intent for the AG to appoint Durham on that specific date, in that specific way.
(1) The shift in the investigative definition/authority now locked down President Trump from demanding the pre-election release of any information that might touch upon the Durham special counsel purview. Any request by President Trump would now be met with the familiar shield of an “ongoing investigation“. You will note this was one of the primary purposes of the Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller special counsel, and this shield was deployed against the office of the President numerous times when the president requested information be made public. The administrative state is self-protecting.
(2) Notice the date of the appointment, October 19, 2020. This date blocked the President from demanding public release and simultaneously fell just 93 days before the Biden inauguration of Jan 20, 2021. This provided Joe Biden one week to use the 100 day back-look nullification of executive branch action. In essence, Biden could have easily ended the Durham probe if he wanted. Strategic timing.
(3) Additionally, notice how AG Bill Barr provided another exit if needed. Under DOJ regulations [28 cfr 600], a special counsel must come from “outside government“; John Durham was not outside government and did not resign his position prior to the appointment. Bill Barr gave the appearance of a special counsel appointment while knowing the legal validity could easily collapse upon challenge (if the Biden administration choose):
“(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.” (link)
Obviously Bill Barr is a smart man. He would know the regulations he cites would require the special counsel to come from “outside the U.S. government,” thus such a simple flaw cannot be looked upon as anything except purposeful.
(4) If the 2020 election outcome did not remove President Trump, notice the special counsel appointment would have continued to hamstring him and keep the administrative state protected from sunlight. Yet, another insurance policy put into place amid a variety of DOJ and FBI insurance policies deployed.
Everything within the Durham appointment as special counsel, the timing, the justification for secrecy, the manner & method, and later the way it was revealed through AP journalist Michael Balsamo points to a coordinated strategy. Note the “kick the can” aspect to the strategy began well before the 2020 election.
Returning to the original -albeit hidden at the time- date of the appointment… October 19, 2020, someone around President Trump was informed about the shift in the Durham probe to a special counsel; and someone justified to the president why that special counsel would remain hidden. Perhaps Bill Barr himself, but I doubt it. It is more likely a ‘high level’ DOJ official put the spin on the appointment to someone like Mark Meadows or the White House counsel.
How do we know that President Trump was informed, manipulated and conned?…
Listen to this very specific speech segment he gave on October 19, 2020, the exact date of Durham becoming a special prosecutor, from Prescott Arizona:
Can you see the structure of the set-up in hindsight?
President Trump was lied to about the motives and intents of Bill Barr and what he was doing with the appointment of John Durham as a special prosecutor.
It is very likely President Trump was frustrated by the DOJ information that was given to him directly or indirectly. However, likely despite his own gut instincts, the president granted the benefit of doubt to Bill Barr on that October date.
It would be entirely understandable for President Trump to be exceptionally angry in 2021 about how Machiavellian and manipulative the apparatus of the justice department, the FBI and the aggregate intelligence apparatus are. The Fourth Branch of Government is in control.
Is it any surprise why President Trump keeps asking “Where’s Durham?“…. while we simultaneously accept John Durham was meant as nothing more than a duplicitous ploy from Bill Barr to quell citizen outrage while advancing a coordinated background effort on behalf of DC interests.
I provide this cited reminder as a warning for how entrenched and controlling those systems of government have become. The people in/around the executive office will even work against the White House if that’s what it takes to retain the system.
There are no allies in DC who are not directly connected to the preservation of a corrupt federal government. The concept of three branches of government has collapsed and there are no checks on the authorities of the larger intelligence apparatus.
Any entity that walks into the DC system must engage that system with foresight and specific knowledge that every single entity, process and institution encountered will seek their removal at all costs.