There’s been a lot of big news over the last several months regarding John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Michael Sussman’s trial is set for shortly. The latest filing indicates that Durham has many targets.
Yet, there’s also something else buried in those revelations: It looks like Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous Trump Dossier, is going to get off scot-free.
For the evidence of that, I’ll turn to someone far smarter and more experienced than me on such legal issues, my RedState colleague, Leslie McAdoo Gordon.
that Steele didn’t raise his 5th Amendment privilege & has agreed to testify voluntarily. There aren’t any other options. If Steele is called to testify, it will be very interesting to hear if Judge Cooper answers that question. Durham gave Jencks material about Steele to Judge Cooper, but it is not. . . /2
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) April 17, 2022
Although @FOOL_NELSON is right that the “statement(s)” for Jencks Act purposes would be any statement made by the witness that Durham has, not just from interviews Durham’s team conducted.
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) April 17, 2022
I don’t think it’s possible to know whether they will or won’t. My point is they have him designated as a govt witness & he definitely doesn’t have immunity, so that almost certainly tells us that Durham has no plans to indict him.
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) April 18, 2022
Durham lists Steele as a witness in the filing. It is not clear that Steele has signed the 5th Amendment or received an immunity agreement. That would likely mean he’s a cooperating witness. Given Steele’s exposure, he wouldn’t agree to such an arrangement if the special counsel hadn’t told him that he will not be prosecuted.
And as McAdoo Gordon points out in her subsequent commentary, the government can’t just falsely promise not to prosecute someone, garner testimony, and then change its mind. That’s how the Bill Cosby conviction got thrown out.
There is another possible explanation, but it doesn’t appear to fully add up. Durham wants to use testimony that he received in a Steele lawsuit as part of his current case. Yet, a prosecutor can’t just take testimony from another case and use it because they feel like it. Durham would need to show that Steele is unavailable now to testify on the specific matter, and there’s been no filing to that effect. In short, it’s possible (perhaps even probable) that Steele himself isn’t going to be called in the Sussmann case. But it’s unlikely even past testimony is used without Steele being assured he’s in the clear.
Moving on to the implications of this, I’m not sure a decision to not prosecute Steele is a bad one. It’s a simple question. Is that what he would be charged? As slimy as his character may be, he was being hired for a job that is legal. The government also hired him. It’s Hillary Clinton, and others around her, who are still legally responsible for their actions and payments. As much as I think Steele is a lying scumbag, Durham isn’t going to charge someone with something that isn’t airtight.
So while it’s frustrating to see that Steele likely walks, it’s not necessarily the wrong decision. It’s just what it is. Durham will hopefully produce results for those who are truly behind this whole thing.