A more optimistic take on the Durham bombshell
Yesterday, I wrote a post detailing what was in Special Prosecutor John Durham's latest filing, a seemingly innocuous motion that contained within it the allegation that Rodney Joffe, a tech executive, at the behest of Hillary Clinton's campaign, spied on Trump, both in Trump Tower and his apartment and, later, in the White House. However, my cynicism is such that I doubted that this would actually come to anything. Mark Wauck, a retired counter-intelligence special agent for the FBI, is more optimistic.
You can read Wauck's entire post here. It's built upon responding to what I wrote.
As noted, I'm cynical that this will go anywhere. I haven't forgotten that, on July 5, 2016, James Comey gave chapter and verse about Hillary's deliberate actions to evade national security laws regarding her emails and then ended by saying, essentially, "Whatever." Wauck, however, thinks Durham's investigation is different.
My post, after summarizing Durham's latest allegations, echoed what Sundance, at Conservative Treehouse said, which is that this is a cosmetic exercise that is meant to provide cover for Mueller's investigation, which was itself a cover-up. Wauck had a few rebuttals that are worth considering, especially because they'll make you feel happier than what I wrote.
Wauck points out that it's meaningful that Joffe is discussed but not indicted:
It's because Durham is targeting him for cooperation. There's only one reason a member of a conspiracy is targeted for cooperation, and that's because that person was acting at the behest of someone higher up the ladder who exercised overall control of the conspiracy.
As far as Wauck is concerned, that's Hillary herself.
Wauck also says I missed that "Campaign Lawyer-1" is Marc Elias. Actually, I was pretty sure that Elias is Campaign Lawyer-1. However, I couldn't easily find a specific site to link to proving incontrovertibly that such is the case, which was not the case with the other people I named. Therefore, I decided not to give voice to my suspicions. Wauck thinks Durham is currently refraining from naming Elias for the same reason he's not naming Joffe: to make him talk.
Image: Hillary Clinton (edited). YouTube screen grab.
And then there's the fact that Hillary's name is finally out in the open. Sussmann and Joffe knew they were engaged in illegal activity when they spied on Trump. However, they figured Hillary would win, so their activity would never be an issue. When Hillary lost, they continued to spy on Trump because they desperately needed to get him out of the White House and get Hillary in. Only in that way could their crimes be covered up:
Sussmann would never in a million years have done that simply as front man for Rodney Joffe, because that involved revealing spying activity against the POTUS. Sussmann would only have taken that risk if he was acting on behalf of a person who could provide him with the necessary political protection that would also shield him from criminal liability. Can you say, Hillary R. Clinton? I can, because that's where the logic of the situation inexorably leads us.
Ultimately, Wauck is more worried that the American people may ultimately be disinterested in their government's corruption than he is worried that Durham is corrupt:
The cat is well and truly out of the bag and has been identified — for all who aren't willfully blind. Durham is doing his job to the best of his ability. Probably better and more thoroughly than anyone had a right to expect, and this ain't no coverup. The only reason what is already known — that Hillary attempted a coup by fraud against President Trump and the American Republic — would only be used for historical research purposes (Sundance's claim) is because the American people are too corrupted to care about their own political and social welfare and/or can't find a leader who cares.
Given that Wauck's firsthand knowledge of FBI operations and investigations is exponentially greater than mine and that, clearly, he has considered this matter more deeply than I have, I yield to his optimism and, for now, am tucking away my cynical pessimism.
UPDATE: I have updated the bad link. Again, Mark Wauck's excellent analysis here.