Is Jake Sullivan a target for Durham?


“Washington was rocked last month by the sudden indictment of Michael Sussman, former counsel for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, for his alleged role in spreading a false Russia conspiracy theory.

Special counsel John Durham – who is variously described as either painfully methodical or positively glacial as a prosecutor – reportedly was prompted to indict Sussman by an expiring statute of limitations.

Absent such a deadline involving Sussman, it seems unlikely that Durham would have disclosed as much as he did in the indictment. The reason is that he is likely working on other possible targets. That could include the most notable figure exposed in the Sussman indictment: Jake Sullivan.


In that event, Sullivan potentially could be in the unenviable position of having to argue that he was not perjurious, just clueless, in denying knowledge of key facts to Congress. The “ignorance is bliss” defense is a favorite fallback in Washington scandals but it is less common when that person is the current national security adviser to the president of the United States.” foxnews

Comment: It would be so sweet … pl

This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns, government, Justice, Media, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Is Jake Sullivan a target for Durham?

  1. Fred says:

    There’s been a deafening silence from Comey, Page, Strzok, Weisman, and even Brennan and Clapper. I wonder what they are all afraid of.

  2. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    I just love me some good Nacht und Nebel. Please, God, let this be so.

  3. Babeltuap says:

    Nobody is worried in the Biden camp about this investigation. They could have shut it down at anytime.

    • Deap says:

      I don’t think anyone in the current Biden cabal paid enough attention to the underpinnings of Russiagate to even bother shutting it down. A few do know all the details, but as mentioned above, they are strangely silent now.

      Democrats bigger problem is they believe their own Democrat pap. To wit: any criticism of Democrat actions are all right wing nut case conspiracies. They simply move on, and don’t bother with any currently unraveling details.

      Never complain, never explain is a political axiom.

  4. Deap says:

    Didn’t Jake Sullivan get full immunity when being involved in the Clinton email. scandals, yet he was asked to offer nothing back in return for this legal protection?

    Was he not also the one who advised Clinton how to set up her home-brew email servers and run her operations outside of government controls? I need to fact check myself, but this same name has been floating around for a long time. To my utter shock to see him rise to his current position with that unlikely lapdog past.

  5. Jim says:

    The scope of the Durham investigation includes Mueller and his entire SCO team; they are all under scrutiny and/or can be according to DOJ Order number 4878 2020. This part of the story always seem to go missing in our partisan media.

    The other fascinating side-show to this at least for me is who is actually supervising Durham.

    Put another way: who can supervise him that does not have an inherent or otherwise conflict of interest — of which this would automatically disqualify Merrick Garland, who already sat in judgement of Michael Flynn, deeming Emmett Sullivan need not end the case even though that case should never have been brought. And disqualify the other three who legally could supervise him, DAG, Associate [assistant?] AG and Solicitor General.

    Media, including Glenn Greenwald just assuming without knowing, really knowing the answer —- just assume Garland is supervising Durham.

    And this from Politico, last month:
    [[[Last year, Barr converted Durham’s probe into a special counsel investigation under Justice Department regulations.

    That move effectively took Durham out of the normal Justice Department hierarchy and supervision, although after the Biden administration assumed office, Attorney General Merrick Garland retained the right to overrule any of Durham’s major decisions, such as the effort to seek an indictment of Sussmann.

    A spokesperson for Garland did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his role in the case.]]]


    In this story, Politico also falsely claims as follows: [[The precise scope of Durham’s mandate has never been clear.]]

    Perhaps Politico hasn’t read Barr’s scope, from Oct 19, 2020, that was tolled until after the November election, when publicly disclosed.

    The DOJ Order number 4878 – 2020 states in relevant part:

    “(a) John Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice.

    (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.”

    I’ll take a crack at saying this more directly.

    The Special Counsel [Durham] is authorized to :
    1.0] investigate
    A any federal official,
    B employee,
    C or any other person or entity

    2.0] that violated the law in connection with
    A intelligence,
    B counter-intelligence,
    C or law-enforcement activities

    3.0] directed at
    A– 2016 presidential campaigns,
    B– individuals associated with those campaigns,
    C– and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump,

    3.1] including but not limited to
    A– Crossfire Hurricane
    B– and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, Ill.

    Of note is Order 4878 2020 has the key use of plural, at “2016 presidential campaigns”

    In addition to hanky panky directed at Trump, this includes [or at least authority to investigate on part of Durham] Hillary Rotten Clinton, [remember her accusing then-Congressman Gabbard of being foreign agent?], and all the other “2016 presidential candidates”.

    Should we be surprised Politico does not know that potential law-breaking against the HRC campaign is also [at least potentially] under scrutiny?

    Recall that Andrew McCabe served as Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from February 2016 to January 2018, and during this period was also ACTING FBI director.

    He authorized Lisa Page [remember her?] to leak to WSJ what theretofore had been kept secret: ongoing investigation of the Clinton Foundation. McCabe lied about it and accused others of leaking this information, published just days before 2016 election.

    This was just so wrong and to date McCabe escapes being held accountable.

    Recall the McCabe version that Rosenstein wanted to wear a wire to entrap Trump? Whose line are we to believe on this mess, now almost five years on?

    Perhaps? Durham will find laws were also broken against the other “third party” 2016 presidential candidates. . . we may find out someday.

    And recall the slap dash and tom foolery dimension of all this. . .the lawsuit Strzok had filed against Barr — Strzok protesting his termination.

    Court exhibits filed by Barr’s attorney show text message between Strzok and Lisa Page, when Strzok’s wife calls Lisa Page on Strzok’s cell phone! — accusing her of having an affair with her husband. . . .

    A sordid affair from heads to lips to. . . toes.

Comments are closed.