Interestingly, the framework of the article today that outlines his upcoming appearance is written around the politics of the investigation of the Clinton review and not the legal aspects therein. This could be a troubling indication because: (a) Huber wouldn’t be able to testify about an ongoing criminal investigation; and (b) this framework would infer DOJ officials (above Huber) have made a determination -or agreed with his determination- that no legal liability is possible within the matters Huber reviewed.
Of course, that’s just my initial take on the way this is all positioned – and not intended to deflate anyone who was hoping John Huber would generate some prosecutorial angle within a multitude of investigations he was possibly reviewing.
From the way the outline of Huber’s appearance is structured, it appears the extent of his investigative responsibility was limited to a review of matters related to Hillary Clinton that surfaced as an outcome of other inquiry – including matters reviewed by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz as they related to Hillary Clinton.
Common sense and basic DOJ practice would then indicate: if Huber is testifying to congress he is not likely holding any indictments for material related to discussion within his testimony.
It looks like Huber testifies on December 5th, then quietly exits the overall picture.
It does not look like Mr. Huber was reviewing anything within “spygate” or the FISA abuse; and also did not likely have any involvement in the Andrew McCabe DOJ legal review and DC-based grand jury matters relating to Andrew McCabe.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
