And we should care about the AG’s Investigation because….
By: Don Mciver
Tags: Impeachment, Criminal Investigation, Hillary Clinton, William Barr, Russia

So let’s get this out there:

1. The New York Times broke this story and put it as the lead story on their website. Yes, they acknowledge what a lot on the left have been saying, “The opening of a criminal investigation is likely to raise alarms that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies” but they are not burying the story.

2. Fox News even quotes the NY Times, “The New York Times reported Thursday that Durham’s criminal review has prompted some CIA officials to obtain criminal legal counsel in anticipation of being interviewed.”

So can we drop the narrative that everything the NYTimes reports is Fake News? They may not be neutral, but they work pretty diligently to report the facts. Yes, facts can be spun, can be highlighted or downplayed, but they still are reporting facts.

3. Does it mean that the FBI acted illegally in opening the Russia/Trump campaign story? Not necessarily. Going from an administrative review to a criminal review means, “The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand jury and to file criminal charges.” That is strangely similar to moving all the disparate investigations in Congress to a singular Impeachment Inquiry. The committee has more leverage to get witnesses to cooperate.

Maybe we should be storming the AG offices in Connecticut and demanding that the AG open the investigation? Arguing that they are not getting due process? Arguing for access to the records? Shouldn’t all of Congress be able to see how the investigation is being handled?

Yes, I know an impeachment inquiry is different than a criminal investigation. Maybe if the AG wants to appear somewhat fair, he should also open a criminal investigation into the Ukraine affair? Here’s the quote from the relevant statutes, “It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;”

Wait, still no investigation…um wonder why that is?

5. Perhaps if they want interview Clapper or Brennan and they refuse (which they probably won’t), the Justice Department would slap them with an Obstruction of Justice charge.

In right speak, that is just a “process” crime, so it doesn’t mean they’ve done anything wrong. Regardless, you can still be charged with Obstruction even if you didn’t commit the underlying crime. If they were to be charged, it would point out the blatant hypocrisy of not understanding the nature of obstruction in regards to the Mueller investigation. A possible remedy then would be to highlight that and then add the obstruction of justices charges to the articles of impeachment. “If it’s good for the goose….”

6. The charge that the President is using the Justice Department to conduct a politically motivated investigation is a concern, but frankly, I’m not sure that’s too far afield from what the Justice Department has always done. Was Bobby Kennedy’s investigation into the mob politically motivated? Was the AG’s investigation into AIM or the Black Panthers politically motivated? Absolutely. We may not agree with Trump’s priorities but let’s not pretend the AG, the FBI, etc. have never been used for political purposes.

7. If the FBI acted illegally against the Trump Campaign does that change the findings that Russia interfered with our election in favor of Donald Trump? No. It may mean that Poppadopalous gets out. Does it exonerate Manafort? Nope…he was charged with financial crimes. Michael Flynn? Who knows.

The FBI used numerous illegal tactics in tracking down the Weather Underground. The FBI is not on our side. We may applaud them for investigating Trump, but we should also keep in mind what they did to Clinton by reopening the investigation into her emails in October of 2016. They are not on “our” side.

So is this a significant development? Sure. Frankly, it doesn’t change the fact that the President appears to have broken the law (see above) nor does it change the fact that Russia interfered in our election in favor of Donald Trump. You may not think either of those things are a big deal…but I do.