Considering the Durham Timeline…

There’s a lot of debate about the timeline for John Durham’s investigation and when the information will likely become public. Toward that end here’s some food for thought.

First, *if* the “criminal investigation” (as confirmed officially by DOJ spox) resulted in evidence that would push toward a grand jury seating, it must be remembered that could not have started until after June 15, 2020:

The entire DC justice system was frozen in place until after June 15. Now considering a time-frame for typical GJ seating and processing, that would put evidence into the GJ around, say June 20th.

Now take a typical DC grand jury timeline of 5 weeks (Wolfe case May 3rd through June 7th); and contrast that against the complexity of the Durham inquiry (twice duration); and consider recent reports that investigators have only just reached principals (Brennan); then an approximate timeline would be two months +/-.

That puts a seated grand jury for Durham’s purpose around June 20th through Mid-August.

Coincidentally, when CTH first discovered the totality of the background corruption story back in the third quarter of 2018, the targeted date for a determination of whether the DOJ was willing to address the scale of the internal corruption issues was mid-August.

Absent action by the DOJ to address the most explosive evidence that outlines the totality of fraud upon American voters by the corrupt DOJ and FBI interests; CTH began compiling all the data into a comprehensive brief on a specific aspect that cuts directly to the heart of the issues.

For the past month, all in phase-one, I have been sharing the contents of that evidence with anyone who can make a substantive difference. I have traveled to several states and briefed staff, principals and some select media. Every person briefed is stunned by the specific evidence compiled and how the dots were never connected; nothing is refuted.

Phase two is making that briefing material well known to everyone.  That material reconciles everything that took place in 2017, 2018 and 2019.  Most long-time CTH readers are already familiar with it…. however, the rest of the electorate are not.

Today someone all of us think has a very granular understanding reached out and discovered they only knew a small segment.  This is good, very good, because they will likely be the bridge to the phase-two delivery.  More conversations are planned.

Hopefully Mr XXXXX and Durham will deliver on behalf of AG Barr and the American people.  However, if they don’t address the dual justice system -mid August- then things will be even bigger and even uglier.

Think about the lessons inside the hidden details of the Wolfe case. Think about the ramifications to the Gang of Eight; to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; to the entire system of intelligence oversight; to the system of inspectors general in the intelligence community; to the separation of power dynamic; to checks and balances; to the entire purpose of the Mueller probe; to an internal coup to remove a sitting president by actions that touch all three branches of U.S. government;…and more importantly to the administration of justice…

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report Clinton Investigation, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, media bias, Notorious Liars, Phase 1, Phase 2, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

500 Responses to Considering the Durham Timeline…

  1. caldeplorable says:

    This is from RealClearInvestigations: Durham bombshells (indictments) may come before Labor Day. Of course, they have to to avoid the 60 days before an election DOJ rule. My fear is that it gets close to Labor Day and the DC court issues some new order shutting downs the Grand Jury. The Big Ugly by mid-August is a must.

    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/08/06/ex-colleagues_see_durham_dropping_bombshells_before_labor_day_124753.html?utm_source=RC+Investigations+Today&utm_campaign=37c52ee5da-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_11_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d042379c8d-37c52ee5da-87253990&mc_cid=37c52ee5da&mc_eid=96b460a9f8

    Liked by 5 people

    • lisa burns says:

      I’m almost positive Barr said in one of his interviews that the 60 day rule did not apply because this is combating the 2016 election interference…. with no action they would be letting it interfere again

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jederman says:

        I hope Barr is good for his word because what he says is crystal clear. Were they to drop a lot of slow joe Ukraine/China corruption stuff inside the 60 days is one thing.

        However investigating the first ever failure to peacefully transfer power to the opposing party based on free elections and the abuse of fed resources to sandbag a newly elected president in order to preserve the “legacy” of the previous admin and the unholy arc of the globalist destruction of this country is a very different prospect.

        It’s a big deal and it transcends all previous political accommodations (60 day “rule” etc).

        Liked by 5 people

      • MelH says:

        Barr said the 60 day rule only applies to the political candidates and he doesn’t have any of them in his crosshairs. That’s why I think the VP will he Susan Rice…….she then would be immune from prosecution and when Biden finishes the one year he has said he would work as President, Susan will be Obummer’s puppet.

        Like

    • Chewbarkah says:

      Barr’s comments have made it clear that he interprets the 60-day moratorium as applying to filing charges against a candidate. He said he does not foresee any charges against the presumptive candidates. If Biden and the Dems complain that Biden is being harmed by pre-election indictments of Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Brennan, etc., they implicitly associate him with their crimes. Indict Biden after the election.

      Liked by 2 people

    • BitterC says:

      There is no 60 day “rule”

      Liked by 3 people

  2. LD says:

    There is no DOJ rule or regulation that forbids indictments immediately prior to the election. That is false. It has certainly been a “practice” when it suits them, but there is no legal or administrative rule against it. Please confirm this for us. Thanks

    Liked by 4 people

    • Mr e-man says:

      I read here there is an unwritten rule about the 60 days. There is a written rule that you can’t use indictments as political tools.

      This wouldn’t be a political “indictment”. It would be a factual evidence based indictment.

      Same goes for if it “influences” an election within the 60 days. It s not an influence operation. It is a fact based operation so the unwritten 60 day rule would not come into play.

      They need to do what they need to do for Justice. Americans need to know the truth as soon as possible. It has been delayed years hiding behind “investigations” and redactions, and stalling, and pandemic shutdowns, and push back form the culprits. also known as obstruction of justice.

      Liked by 3 people

      • LD says:

        Thanks for your input and I agree entirely. An unwritten regulation is NO regulation and merely a whim in the mind of the government hack looking for a way out of a fence-straddling, mindless, groundless, lack of a fundamentals sense of right and wrong. That is the swamp mindset and it needs to be expunged at the end of a rope or burned in a cage on the steps of the Capitol. If such a rule is needed by the American public, then they can damn well pass a LAW regarding it. Thanks again.

        Liked by 2 people

      • nimrodman says:

        Mr e-man, what you describe is consistent with my post just upthread, posted after your comment here

        Liked by 2 people

        • nimrodman says:

          Just watched Greg Jarrett on Fox explaining

          “there is no such restriction (60-day rule) … there is a written rule that “you cannot take a law-enforcement action for the purpose of inluencing an election”

          “… if that is not your purpose, then there is no restriction”

          Liked by 2 people

      • 1nikao says:

        If Democrats didn’t want their candidate to beindicted within 60 days of the election, they shouldn’t have chosen a criminal for a candidate.
        His indictment isn’t political, it’s legal & just.
        Anyway, it goves the Dems the excuse they’ve been looking for to get Michelle Obama into the White House. She’s the epitome of grace & upstanding virtue. /s/

        Like

      • 1nikao says:

        If Democrats didn’t want their candidate to beindicted within 60 days of the election, they shouldn’t have chosen a criminal for a candidate.
        His indictment isn’t political, it’s legal & just.
        Anyway, it goves the Dems the excuse they’ve been looking for to get Michelle Obama into the White House. She’s the epitome of grace & upstanding virtue. /s/

        Like

    • KT Prayer Warrior says:

      In that REAL Clear article linked above, the writer re-called the part of AG Barr’s testimony when asked if he would refrain from releasing Durham’s report before the elections. He had stated emphatically “no”. One of the few times he was allowed to talk and said nothing further. The representative was shocked silent for a split second. He was clear. He wasn’t giving anything beyond “no”. I think she expected him to give scenarios. He said he would not commit to refraining from any release.I

      I was very encouraged.

      Liked by 5 people

      • LD says:

        Yes. I saw that and remember Mr. Barr’s reply. That certainly makes clear that there is no such rule. And even if there was, he runs the DOJ and can waive, eliminate, create or modify any rule he wants. Thanks

        Liked by 1 person

    • Tulips Moran says:

      Folks remember where this 60 day “rule” started…[9-3-2016] Two years ago, Jane Chong dove deep into the supposed 60-day rule in a Lawfare post on FBI Director James Comey’s October 2016 letter on new developments in the Clinton investigation. As she wrote then, there is no formal rule barring Justice Department action in the days immediately before an election. Rather, the “rule” is more of a soft norm based on what former Attorney General Eric Holder himself described as “long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition.” In a guidance Holder issued in 2012, the attorney general wrote that, “Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party”—which, Chong noted, leaves a wide loophole for actions taken near an election without the purpose of affecting that election. In 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a similar memorandum with the same language, as the inspector general report lays out.” https://www.lawfareblog.com/about-60-day-rule

      This was a weasel directive by Dimwit AG to protect their own. 60 day rule? Tell ’em to pound sand. Durham needs to bring it on. Lawfare said it so it must be right!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Snellvillebob says:

      Remember when Comey re-opened the Hillary e-mail investigation two weeks before the election? Both this and that investigations are ongoing before the 60 day limit.

      Like

  3. Chewbarkah says:

    I hope that Sundance has been able to connect with DANIEL GADE, who is running for US Senate against Mark “criminal conspirator” Warner. Gade needs to understand Warner’s role so he can hammer him on it. Gade is a relative unknown. His success depends completely on exposing Warner.

    Liked by 5 people

    • nimrodman says:

      Admin – if you keyword-search the comment threads for ‘Admin’ or ‘Sundance’, I hope you’ll see this and elevate it to Sundance’s attention. Thx

      Was going to suggest Chewbarkah email it in but I know you’re swamped there too

      Like

  4. craig says:

    WSJ (via Ace of Spades) is reporting rumors that Susan Rice is being considered for Biden’s VP nominee. Is this (a) a DNC ploy to attack indictments against the coup plotters as “political” and gin up even more excuses for refusing to accept a Trump win, or (b) a Deep State ploy to enable Barr/Durham to hit the snooze bar until Biden’s cavalry arrives? Place your bets.

    Like

  5. honornc1 says:

    Please take a moment to read:

    When you grind hard enough -the rust starts coming off the wheels, one splinter at a time. But it takes patience, effort, and determination. Most would just replace the rusty wheel w/ a new one, but not our POTUS.

    It’s now apparent Rudi G’s evidence gathered about Ukraine & forwarded to the DOJ (way back when) and about which the MSM labeled crazy/conspiracy theory was accurate. (Which we treepers/lurkers already knew). MSM will ignore the FBI indictments of late, but that’s how they deal w/ the truth – bury it.

    Interestingly to note too: POTUS is going off the grid so-to-speak after his talk at Whirlpool and his comments included saying: ‘I have a lot of enemies out there and this may be the last time you see me for awhile…a lot of very very rich enemies but they’re not happy w/ what I’m doing…but we have one chance to it and no other President going to do what I’m going to do..’

    Something is truly underway here – I truly believe that now.

    The Ukraine, pay-to-pay, scheme is the 1st of many (I hope), under AG Barr, that may finally expose all the gov’t ELECTED officials that continue to bring this country down.

    I don’t care if this corruption investigation finds both R’s or D’s are culpable – get them all out/prosecute them to the fullest, but moreover, get them out b/c Americans have been conned far too long b/c of systemic quid pro quo governance/under-the-table kickback governance.

    Leaving you with a link (at the very bottom of this post) to a very succinct thread about the Miami & Cleveland FBI raids and their meaning (I hope you read this)

    (Aside) – Sundance – I hope you can find out who the brave soldiers are in the FBI Cleveland & Miami Field offices and reach out to them too if need be for the other issues. One step, leads to another, and before you know it, you have walked a miles.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1291802483682168834.html

    Liked by 8 people

  6. Bring it on! The Big Ugly!!

    Like

  7. Bring it on! The Big Ugly!!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. While discussing the finer points of protocol, my pants were stolen. I don’t know if I’ll ever get them back.

    Like

  9. While discussing the finer points of protocol, my pants were stolen. I don’t know if I’ll ever get them back.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s