case given that durham is against clock and the fact that the details of at least this indictment that they re seeking appears to have been spelled out in a lot of detail to the press? yeah, i don t know. you get that fifth year because you get the fifth year. that time is part of it. it may be they wanted to make sure they have taken every step. it may be that merrick garland requested a detailed review of this all the way up the chain and that has taken so long. but it does tend to suggest that they have worked very, very hard and this is all they ve got, which doesn t sound like much. again, i do want to reserve judgment until we see all the facts because it could be, as so often happens, that the first charge is not the lat charge, that this is the first charge and it s an effort to obtain leverage over someone to attempt
it s a violation to the constitutional right to get an abortion no matter which of the 50 states you live in. file filing that lawsuit could result in a judge knocking down the texas abortion ban, the filing of that lawsuit does nothing in the short term to put the texas law on pause, to try to stop it while it s litigated in court. now that s changed. in an emergency motion filed shortly before midnight last night the justice department has now asked the judge in this case to temporarily block the enforcement of texas abortion ban. not later at the end of the day when the lawsuit ultimately is resolved b now while the challenges to it are pending. and the doj s filing is filled with these stories about women who had to drive for hours and sell their stuff to try to get an abortion out of state now that it s illegal to get one in the state where they live. the judge tonight scheduled a hearing to decide whether he is going to act on this emergency motion to stop the texas ban to
he was there on behalf of no clients or on behalf of a cyber expert, it really does not matter. when you have information about a crime the fbi takes it in a necessitate bases on its value, sometimes it seems like it is not worthy of further investigation, people call the fbi all day every day to say little green martians are interfering with my thoughts. they don t investigate those. but other cases they can take seriously they do investigate and they do vet the fact that you re representing a client are not representing a client, i don t think his material to this. i think it s especially rich in light of the fact that these investigators at the doj that are looking into the russia, in the michael flynn case dismissed that case because they found his statements were not material remember he lied to the fbi about what he said to the russian ambassador
they ary that clinton campaign used their law firm to submit dubious information to the fbi about russia and trump to gin up investigative activity to hurt his 2016 campaign. there has been no sign that he has found any evidence that have theory. so what that apparently leaves durham with is a lawyer who gave some the fbi some information he says he thought they should have. the fib chased that down and decided, eh, it s probably nothing. and maybe that lawyer, there is some question as to whether he fully revealed who he was representing at that time? does it matter who he was representing at the time? as for why this case is being brought now, well, look at clock. the meeting in question here happened on september 19, 2016. what s today s date? september 15, 2021. because of a five-year statute of limitations for such cases, mr. durham has a deadline of
as for why this case is being brought now, well, look at the clock. the meeting in question here happened on september 19th, 2016. what s today s date? september 15th, 2021. because of a five-year statute of limitations for such cases, mr. durham has a deadline of this weekend to bring a charge over activity from that date. literally the statute of limitations, i think, expires on sunday. here it is wednesday, and he s rushing to get this done before the statute of limitations expires. this indictment has apparently not been filed yet. we do not have all the facts yet. whether this lawyer told the fbi something untrue, whether it matters who his client was when he gave this information for the fbi for them to look into, that may be hashed out in court. but the big picture here, the substance of the suspicion around the alfa bank stuff is that this might be evidence of some means of covert