Roger L. Simon’s latest article isn’t likely to help Democrats sleep well at night. Simon’s article quotes extensively from Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s WSJ op-ed, which is behind a paywall. The biggest story lately has been impeachment. That won’t stay the biggest story forever. If Attorney General Mukasey is right, I’d hate to have a last name spelled B-i-d-e-n. Here’s Mukasey’s explanation:

That Justice Department statement makes explicit that the president never spoke with Attorney General William Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son” or asked him to contact Ukraine “on this or any other matter,” and that the attorney general has not communicated at all with Ukraine. It also contains the following morsel: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.” [Bold mine]

I doubt that Moeller’s investigation into Ukraine was that vigorous. Nobody will doubt that Durham’s investigation is thorough enough. This is why this digging is utterly worthwhile:

The definitive answer to the obvious question—what’s that about?—is known only to Mr. Durham and his colleagues. But publicly available reports, including by Andrew McCarthy in his new book, “Ball of Collusion,” suggest that during the 2016 campaign the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get evidence from Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump. When you grope through the miasma of Slavic names and follow the daisy chain of related people and entities, it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort—acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”

I don’t know what Durham will find but I’m confident he’ll find lots of stuff. After all, he’s the guy who took over a cold case after 30 years, then found the evidence and witnesses and won a conviction. If I’m a Biden or associated with the Clinton campaign, I’d start worrying. It’s warranted.

2 Responses to “The biggest story in 2020?”

  • eric z says:

    The biggest story is the healthcare reform which is around the corner, the debt burden relief for student debt and surprise medical debt, the move toward fair taxation of mega-incomes and finally moving to tax down obscene accumulations of wealth. Fair taxation would alone be a big story, but there’s more that will be happening, 2021, after the next election results are official. Or not. Trump could get four more years, but that is unlikely. Joe Biden fading will be significant, but not the biggest story because he always was mediocre and besides name recognition he brings little to the table other than not being Trump. Bernie and Liz will be the story to top all others.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Eric, I’ll agree that Biden “always was mediocre.” Elizabeth Warren & Bernie aren’t exactly stellar but at least they don’t stumble like death warmed over like Biden.

Leave a Reply