All eyes have been focused lately on Andrew McCabe taking a victory lap on CNN after DoJ declined to prosecute him for “misstatement of facts” based on a referral from a 2018 DoJ inspector general report.

But not so fast! Since October 2019 (if not before), John Durham, US attorney for Connecticut, has been conducting a criminal investigation into the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016, as reported here:

[A] new criminal inquiry will proceed to find out how the investigation of Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election and Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia “all began.” Attorney General William Barr has closely reviewed how the department handled the Russia investigation. But shifting the administrative review to a criminal inquiry would allow the prosecutor presiding over the inquiry, John H. Durham, to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, people familiar with the matter told the Times.

The NY Times provided an update last Thursday on what Durham may be up to: “Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal.”

During the course of that wide-ranging investigation, he and his investigators have interviewed analysts at multiple US intelligence agencies, including the CIA, FBI, NSA, and others. The investigation also has taken him to Italy (twice), the UK, and elsewhere in order to investigate foreign involvement. In expanding his probe after the Horowitz report on FISA abuse was released in early December last year, Durham requested all of former CIA John Brennan’s electronic communications, phone records, and other documents from the CIA. There are reports/rumors that Durham and his investigators have uncovered a “mountain of evidence” that goes far beyond the original scope of the investigation.

To date, exactly what specific criminal activity and who is involved have not been officially confirmed by DoJ or Durham himself. (That’s a GOOD sign!) There has been much speculation toward that end. Here is some well-informed and thought-provoking speculation as to what is happening from a pal of mine who is very well-connected in the “federal law enforcement community” in Washington, D.C.

I am hearing that the protracted impeachment process pushed back the conclusion of the Spygate investigation (delayed so as not to interfere with the public’s focus on the impeachment trial). During that time, Durham et al made a decision to refocus the criminal investigations to wrap Spygate up into a conspiracy targeting its originators (John Brennan/Valerie Jarrett/others) rather than specifically going after the Spygate enablers (Comey, McCabe, Strzok, etc.). During the impeachment, AG Barr, Durham, and John Huber developed a better strategy for convictions that is less politically advantageous to the President, and they convinced President Trump to approve it. I’m told that it’s become common knowledge among key DoJ insiders that the “gloves are off” and now targets include current and former members of Congress plus the obvious former members of the Obama administration. Also, with Boris Johnson now the prime minister, the UK is now cooperating on the refocused investigations, which will push indictments to the spring or summer of this year. AG Barr is said to have counseled Trump to not give ammunition to the defense by making indictments when politically advantageous due to the inevitable Democrat-media perception of political motivation (this will likely happen regardless, as the Democrat are already publicly calling for AG Barr’s head for being “Trump’s political toady”). The president wants to punch back (don’t blame him!), but Barr is advising letting the opponent to continue making mistakes. President Trump is frustrated by the restraint, but he apparently agrees for now that the payoff will be better over the long run. The president (who’s now playing to his base) knows that the base wants to see perp-walks. AG Barr knows making perp-walks seem political might cost some convictions in the long game. He wants open-and-shut cases and convictions with minimal political taint (good luck with that; the Democrats will scream political retribution until the cows come home). On another important note, Rudy Giuliani is said to have shifted his RICO expertise from looking at the Clintons to a focus on the Bidens and others gaining from pay-to-play activities and Ukraine-related corruption. That would explain AG Barr’s appointment of an “outside screening process” to review Ukraine-related information/evidence that is being run by the US attorney from Pittsburgh. I also heard that President Trump is waiting for the Democrat nominee to be chosen. He sees no need to throw truly hard punches until then and is content to troll Democrats and the media on Twitter until then. I would argue that the Democrats are committing seppuku without Trump’s help! Finally, even though the initial focus is on indictments for a Spygate conspiracy, I don’t think the main enablers will skate, provided there is sufficient evident to obtain indictments on them. AG Barr‘s main goal is to obtain solid convictions, not just indictments. The refocusing of the Durham criminal investigation is supposed to drop focus on targets on whom they don’t think they can get indictments.

This is some excellent insight! A Spygate conspiracy indictment would sweep up a LOT of people from the Obama administration and in the political class.

It should further be noted that the anonymously-sourced spate of stories about the Durham criminal investigation in the NY Times (and elsewhere) is likely originating from the CIA and others outside the Durham investigation. It goes without saying that EVERYTHING in the NY Times as relates to Spygate, Crossfire Hurricane, and the Obama DoJ/FBI FISA abuse is intended to spin the narrative in favor of the complicit in order to falsely impact public opinion.

The NY Times and the rest of the Democrat-run legacy media would like us to forget some basic facts. As my pal previously has remarked, “Why didn’t Obama and his IC bubbahs use the current Russian cyber national intelligence estimate (NIE) to accuse the Russians of meddling in 2016 on behalf of President Trump?” He then answered his own question: “Because Russia isn’t trying to get anyone specific elected; they’re just meddling as usual, which forced Brennan to go off the reservation to ‘get Trump’ via Spygate.” Remember that in December 2016, Obama said he stopped Putin from conducting cyber attacks in September 2016 and stated that no evidence of any Russian activity was detected by USCYBERCOM or any other US cyber agencies.

It is very important to contrast Obama’s public “before-and-after” statements about Russian interference with his actions behind the scenes to run with Spygate and also to have his henchmen, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, unmask hundreds of Americans for political purposes. Hopefully, Obama himself will be named as one of the Spygate conspirators, as he most certainly was involved up to his eyeballs!

So, basically, John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, ignored intelligence community assessments and criminally created his own intelligence to politically attack a candidate and a president – a monumentally unconstitutional and criminal act.

I will wait for the indictments which are certain to come (and which could very well wipe that smug smile off McCabe’s face). It will be epic to behold.

The end.

Stu Cvrk served 30 years in the US Navy in a variety of active and reserve capacities, with considerable operational experience in the Middle East and the Western Pacific. An oceanographer and systems analyst through education and experience, Stu is a graduate of the US Naval Academy where he received a classical liberal education which serves as the key foundation for his political commentary. He threads daily on Twitter on a wide range of political, military, foreign policy, government, economics, and world affairs topics. Read more by Stu Cvrk