What crimes? This investigation has rolled for 3 years now, starting with an IG investigation and then onto Durham. There has been exactly 1 guilty plea associated with a FISA application.
There has been 1 guilty plea. However, there are reams and reams of evidence of crimes committed in connection with FISA abuse. Like I said, if the Dems were running that process we'd have dozens of convictions at this point. Every FISA application is a sworn document and virtually every one reviewed had material "error" (which translates into knowingly made false statements if you're not trying to make it sound less bad). I mean honestly, the evidence of Flynn's guilt for lying is a vague supposed conflict between 2 statements that doesn't show up in the interview reports and that the agents thought could have been a misremembering, and you think that's a crime, yet lying in a sworn statement by claiming information has been verified, when it was not verified nor were the legally mandated records about that verification maintained, is not.
The issue seems to be that while you can easily convince yourself that a cop is lying to protect other cops in a random trial involving race, you've got giant blinders on when thousands of "errors" all show up in the same direction and no one is held accountable at the FBI or the DOJ. Did you listen to either McCabe or Comey testify on FISA? You know what they did right? They said they weren't responsible for any false information in the FISA applications - cause they'd "never" do that - and when asked to explain who was? Oh it was a team responsibility and no one was responsible. That's almost the definition of how you set up a corrupt system designed to violate the law and your rights. Laws get broken, routinely and in the interests of senior officials, and "no one" is responsible.
Is seems like there isn't a lot of crime to be found.
If you don't look for them in good faith and have next to no understanding of what the laws require you could believe that, but you'd still be wrong.
And that's before we even consider all the terrible policies that have been revealed in this process. I mean, the FBI testimony revealed that they have no respect - at all - for the Constitutional requirement of probable cause. They revealed that its routine to misuse various authorities to spy on people and take documents without any legitimate basis. I mean literally, they accessed materials on Flynn - for example - without even a credible allegation of a crime. They effectively showed that for -anyone- involved in politics or connected to -anyone- involved in politics no matter how remotely, that FBI believes it has the authority to effectively "issue warrants" without even a suspicion, let alone a reasonable suspicion. I mean part of what the Horowitz report turned on was his conclusion that there is effectively
no minimum standard at all to open a counter terrorism investigation and spy on an American citizen. And it wasn't just FISA abuse, testimony revealed several other work arounds they use to illegally access your data.
So yes, if you empower officials to investigate a "crime" against a standard that is - nothing done can be wrong - they're going to find there was no wrong. But nothing about that is consistent with what the Constitution requires or with the concept of having rights.
I could be proven wrong but Mueller was indicting and getting convictions regularly in his 18 month investigation that also faced bureaucratic obstruction by the White House.
As far as I know Mueller got one conviction - Stone - on anything remotely related to the investigation.
He cheated to put Manafort in jail by giving him a deal and then reneging on the deal (even though Manafort was still bound by the deal and not allowed to challenge "facts" included therein), and his conviction had zero to do with the investigation. Not to mention, you'd be hard pressed to prove objectively that Gates wasn't the real guilty party but Mueller gave Gates a sweet heart deal because he wanted Manafort. Which is exactly the point about the difference between Mueller and Barr, Mueller doesn't care if Manafort was really responsible or not, he didn't care if Gates was the guilty person and Manafort a victim, or if the opposite was true, he only cared about it as leverage to convict someone else. Mueller didn't even care if he was suborning perjury.
And that's really it.
Cohen pled for a deal, which means you'll never know if Mueller could have convicted him. Cohen clearly had some personal tax fraud issues, but overall he turned out to be worthless to Mueller.
The Russians he charged? Mueller dropped the charges when they demanded discovery rather than prosecute.
Papadopoulus, not even clear what he did, but he pled guilty anyway and the court thought it was so serious that he got a 14 day sentence.
Van Der Swaan - less than a month after a plea for lying in connection with the case against Gates. Remember how I mentioned that it could have been Gates.... hmm....
Pinedo - pled guilty to one count of identity fraud for
unwittingly selling bank accounts to Russian troll farms.
So that's literally it. Mueller won exactly 2 cases in court, one was rigged (Manafort) where he got to use Manafort's confessions and days of testimony obtained under a plea deal against Manafort, even though Mueller reneged on the deal against Manafort, and where he gave a sweetheart deal to Gates (who may actually have been the one criminally liable) to show the crimes that
one of them committed in court, for tax crimes that happened years before Trump ran for office.
And Roger Stone, who's big lie to Congress was about sources he didn't actually have at Wikileaks. Literally Roger Stone was pretending to have inside contacts at Wikileaks in public that never existed, and when Congress asked him who his source was he tagged Credico - who actually talked to Wikileaks - but after Stone made his public comments, instead of Corsi who Stone tasked with making a contact with Wikileaks but who failed to do it. He got four years for that, which given some of the lies we've heard in the past from others is remakably exceptional.
So why do you have this delusion that Mueller somehow was proving things left and right, when it never happened? He effectively blackmailed a handful of people with threats of massive penalties, including in Flynn's case threats against his son, into taking deals - one of which he prominently reneged on. When he was challenged in his case against the ONLY PEOPLE actually charged with crime he was supposedly investigating he dropped his charges rather than prove them.
All said I do think it would be unethical if on day 1 Biden walks in and fires Durham.
He doesn't have to and he won't. He'll let his attorney general kill it. Remember Eric Holder? Killed multiple investigations blatantly and the media let it go.
