The recent testimony of special counsel John Durham before Congress has sparked a series of questions among both members of Congress and the American public. Some have even gone so far as to speculate whether Durham may have been involved in a cover-up. However, it is crucial for us to approach this situation with a broader perspective, understanding that we are currently witnessing a real-time unfolding of events, much like watching a movie. The optics surrounding this investigation, including the Russia hoax, carry substantial weight. Therefore, it is necessary to delve deeper into the testimony and its implications.
When observing the ongoing events surrounding the testimony of special counsel John Durham, it is important to recognize that this is an evolving narrative. Rather than hastily jumping to conclusions or engaging in baseless conjecture, we must allow the final report of the investigation to reveal the full extent of its findings. In this sense, we can draw a parallel to watching a movie. Just as we experience the plot unfold and the characters' motivations become clearer over time, we should exercise patience in comprehending the complexities of this investigation.
Optics play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and perception. The investigation into the Russia hoax has garnered considerable attention and generated polarized views among the American public. Some perceive it as a politically motivated endeavor, while others see it as an essential pursuit of justice. Understanding the significance of optics allows us to recognize the varying perspectives surrounding this investigation and why it has become such a contentious issue.
The notion that special counsel John Durham may be involved in a cover-up has arisen among certain individuals. However, it is vital to approach such claims with caution and skepticism until concrete evidence emerges. Making premature judgments can hinder the objective assessment of the situation and lead to the propagation of unfounded conspiracy theories. Instead, it is necessary to rely on verifiable information and the due process of the investigation.
In any investigation, transparency and accountability are essential pillars that uphold public trust. The testimony of special counsel John Durham provides an opportunity to assess the level of accountability and transparency exhibited in this case. While some may question the motives or actions of the counsel, it is crucial to allow the final report of the investigation to be dissemination far and wide. Only through an unbiased evaluation of the evidence can we achieve accountability and maintain faith in the justice system.
I propose that the reason John Durham did not investigate every aspect of his mandate may be due to a larger plan that is not yet known to the public. In his report, Durham primarily focused on the FBI's mishandling and misconduct in relation to established protocols and procedures during the opening of the Russia hoax investigation. Strangely, the report did not mention any investigation of Robert Mueller, despite Durham's clear directive to do so. It is crucial not to jump to conclusions in this matter, as there could be multiple reasons why Durham only investigated certain aspects.
Furthermore, we should bear in mind that we have long been informed that the military is the only viable option. Therefore, it is worth considering why a federal prosecutor would interfere with a plan already set in motion. I believe John Durham's appointment as a special counsel to investigate the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and the FBI was intended to shed light on specific aspects of the FBI for public awareness. It is notable that Durham's investigation took nearly four years to complete, suggesting a deliberate timeline. Similarly, the minimal indictments and guilty pleas may be part of a larger strategy. The Sussmann, Danchenko, and Kevin Clinesmith trials resulted in limited outcomes, with Clinesmith receiving 12 months of probation and 400 hours of community service for altering a Trump-Russia probe email.
Moreover, the testimony of Robert Mook during the trial of Michael Sussmann revealed critical and damning information about the "Clinton Plan" to frame Trump, primarily through the creation of the Steele dossier. It is important to note that Mook served as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager during the 2016 presidential campaign. Additionally, it is crucial to recognize that none of the cases brought to trial by John Durham were intended solely to secure convictions and imprison individuals. Instead, the objective was to gather crucial evidence for potential future use. Durham needed this information on the court record while witnesses were under oath, ensuring its credibility.
In conclusion, it is essential to maintain an open mindset and consider the broader context in which these events are occurring. We are watching a complex narrative unfold, and it is premature to jump to conclusions or harbor preconceived notions, such as the belief that John Durham is involved in a cover-up. Throughout his distinguished career as both a state and federal prosecutor, as well as a Deputy U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney, John Durham has upheld the rule of law and demonstrated utmost respect for the Constitution. His character, his impeccable record and numerous achievements, awards and recognition for his outstanding work over his 40-plus years of service attest to his commitment to justice.
Never trusted Durham and even less now.