As Guy Who Always Thinks Things Are Beginning says: And so it begins.
A grand jury, of course, is empowered to indict people for crimes. It also has great powers to demand testimony and subpoena documents.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered a grand jury to investigate the Obama-era origins of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative following a criminal referral from DNI Tulsi Gabbard.
Key Details:
Bondi personally instructed a federal prosecutor to present DOJ findings to a grand jury, according to a letter reviewed by Fox News Digital.
The DOJ received Gabbard's referral two weeks ago, which included a memo alleging intelligence was suppressed showing Russian cyberattacks did not impact the 2016 election.
No indictments have been issued yet, and it's unclear whether the probe will result in charges, as statutes of limitations may have expired for some of the conduct.
...
According to a letter from Bondi reviewed by Fox News, the attorney general has ordered a federal prosecutor--whose name has not been made public--to begin grand jury proceedings and present relevant DOJ evidence. A spokesperson for the department declined to confirm the specific details but said Bondi is taking Gabbard's referral "very seriously," citing "clear cause for deep concern."
Byron York: Focus on what Hillary Clinton did.
This is perhaps the most important paragraph in Durham's 306-page report. It's worth reading carefully:
The Clinton Plan intelligence itself and on its face arguably suggested that private actors affiliated with the Clinton campaign were seeking in 2016 to promote a false or exaggerated narrative to the public and to U.S. government agencies about Trump's possible ties to Russia. Given the significant quantity of materials the FBI and other government agencies did in fact receive during the 2016 presidential election season and afterwards that originated with and/or were funded by the Clinton campaign or affiliated persons (i.e., the Steele Dossier reports, the Alfa Bank allegations, and the YotaPhone allegations), the Clinton Plan intelligence prompted the [special counsel's] office to consider (i) whether there was in fact a plan by the Clinton campaign to tie Trump to Russia in order to "stir up a scandal" in advance of the 2016 presidential election, and (ii) if such a plan existed, whether an aspect or component of that plan was to intentionally provide knowingly false and/or misleading information to the FBI or other agencies in furtherance of such a plan.
Oppo research is a nasty, but legal, method of politicking.
But Hillary Clinton didn't publish her oppo research so that the public would be persuaded by the smear. No, she passed it to the FBI with the intention of causing the government to attack her enemy.
1) By April, 2016, the Clinton campaign already had a contractor -- Steele -- working on developing damaging information on Trump and Russia.
2) By July 24, the campaign was publicly raising the charge of Trump-Russia collusion, and the New York Times reported the topic was "emerging as a theme of Mrs. Clinton's campaign."
3) Also in July, Steele contacted an FBI agent and "requested an urgent meeting," according to the Durham report. There Steele gave the FBI one of his first reports. It alleged, famously, that "Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican president candidate Donald Trump for at least five years," an operation that was "both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin." It also alleged, infamously, that Russian spy cameras had recorded "Trump's (perverted) conduct in Moscow" including "employing a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him." That was the salacious and wildly false allegation that later became known as the "pee tape." It is without any doubt an example of the Clinton campaign, working through its contractor Steele, providing "false and/or misleading information to the FBI or other agencies."
4) After July, Steele worked hard to funnel his anti-Trump material into the media. For journalists, the dossier's unsupported gossip would be legitimized by the fact that the FBI was investigating it.
5) In September, a Democratic lawyer working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, Michael Sussmann, planted a false allegation about Trump and Russia -- the so-called Alfa Bank story -- with the FBI. At the time, Sussmann denied he was acting for the Clinton team, even though he billed the campaign for the outreach to the FBI.
In light of that, look at Durham's two questions: "(i) whether there was in fact a plan by the Clinton campaign to tie Trump to Russia in order to 'stir up a scandal' in advance of the 2016 presidential election, and (ii) if such a plan existed, whether an aspect or component of that plan was to intentionally provide knowingly false and/or misleading information to the FBI or other agencies in furtherance of such a plan."
The answer to (i) is yes, there was a plan. The answer to (ii)? Well, there is no question that the Clinton campaign provided false and/or misleading information to the FBI. Whether it did so knowing the information was false and/or misleading is still a point of argument, at least among Democrats. In light of the entirety of what is now known, it seems extremely hard to believe the campaign did not know its feeds to the FBI were false and/or misleading.
Still, in the most basic sense, we know what Hillary Clinton did. It wasn't just opposition research.