Two media reports today point toward an aspect CTH had noticed happening in the background of the Durham/Aldenberg investigation.
The Washington Examiner and New York Times are writing about Durham investigating 2016 efforts from Main Justice DOJ to block FBI efforts to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The interesting part is what the media ignore (emphasis mine):
WASH EXAMINER– […] The New York Times report Thursday said that Clinton Cash “caught the attention of FBI agents, who viewed some of its contents as additional justification to obtain a subpoena for foundation records,” but former officials said “top Justice Department officials denied a request in 2016 from senior FBI managers in Washington to secure a subpoena.” The outlet said that “the decision frustrated some agents who believed they had enough evidence beyond the book, including a discussion that touched on the foundation and was captured on a wiretap in an unrelated investigation.” (more)
Who was one of the “top Justice Department officials” in position to deny the 2016 request from senior FBI managers in Washington? As TechnoFog notes: “The DOJ Criminal Division Fraud Section (FSCD) would have overseen prosecutions relating to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (ie. bribery that crosses borders).”
Who was Chief, of the DOJ Criminal Division Fraud Section in 2016?
That would be Andrew Weissmann, the same corrupt epicenter of the Robert Mueller investigation. So how did the New York Times get their information about what Durham is looking into? (again, emphasis mine)
(New York Times) […] The Clinton Foundation investigation began about five years ago, under the Obama administration, and stalled in part because some former career law enforcement officials viewed the case as too weak to issue subpoenas. Ultimately, prosecutors in Arkansas secured a subpoena for the charity in early 2018. To date, the case has not resulted in criminal charges.
Some former law enforcement officials declined to talk to Mr. Durham’s team about the foundation investigation because they felt the nature of his inquiry was highly unusual, according to people familiar with the investigation. Mr. Durham’s staff members sought information about the debate over the subpoenas that the F.B.I. tried to obtain in 2016 and have also approached current agents about the matter, but it is not clear what they told investigators.
A spokesman for Mr. Durham declined to comment. (more)
Weissmann squealing to the New York Times for help…
Now this makes sense: