Durham: Clinton allies spied on the Executive Office of the President

[gnome]

So who authorised collecting data from Trump Tower?
...and are you justifying the hag's campaign even gaining access to obozo's data? Why the f' does this stuff always end up coming back to her and her campaign?
....and why do you seem to be ok with it?

So, before the goalpost gets moved, you admit it wasn't Trump's EOP? (Judging by his tweets, doesn't seem like Trump understands that)

How did they get info from Trump Tower servers DNS info? I'm finding it hard to find details on that. But if Trump's servers are connected to the internet, that means they are sharing their DNS info with other computers - that's how DNS works. Nowhere does Durham allege such info was obtained illegally, only that what was done with it was...exploitation (I agree it was).

Why does it come back to Hillary, because she's shady AF. It's not that I'm OK with it...looks like DC swamp all the way...doesn't matter what I think, what does the law say?
I'm just not seeing a prosecutable crime - for Sussman (except lying), Joffe, or the hag. We've been trying to put her in prison for 30 years. She's a slippery crook.

 

[gnome]

Cato Institute does good work on internet privacy and liberties...
Thread on Durham probe.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493978466315821059

 

[chieftain]

When I recall the MONTHS OF FRONT PAGE HEADLINES, the HOURS OF DOCUMENTARIES and FILMS about Watergate, it's mind-blowing how LITTLE COVERAGE there is on "Watergate 2.0 on Steroids" now.

There is no longer a "4th Estate", i.e. a "free press" independent from the "powerful"...

Watergate (and a few other rounds of shenanigans) were a part of the reason why the press was castrated and turned into govco's bitch. Even a partly free press is a massive threat to the MIC, so it was molded into the perverted piss poor excuse for journalism we see today.

 

[ZZZZZ]

Cato Institute does good work on internet privacy and liberties...
Thread on Durham probe.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493978466315821059

View attachment 245533View attachment 245532
View attachment 245534
View attachment 245535

OMG! "Russian-made smart phones 'near' the White Housel! "

The Russian embassy in DC, is a few miles away from the WH. And their embassy probably has a thousand "employees."

Trump must be hanged for treason!
.
.

 

[gnome]

OMG! "Russian-made smart phones 'near' the White Housel! "

The Russian embassy in DC, is a few miles away from the WH. And their embassy probably a thousand "employees."

Trump must be hanged for treason!
.
.

A vicious smear. Politics as usual. Not bigger than Watergate.
Only crime so far alleged is lying to FBI.

 

[Goldbrix]

Cato Institute does good work on internet privacy and liberties...
Thread on Durham probe.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493978466315821059

View attachment 245533View attachment 245532
View attachment 245534
View attachment 245535

The arguments that need supported by facts and evidence. To be decided in Court(s).

 

[Thecrensh]

Cato Institute does good work on internet privacy and liberties...
Thread on Durham probe.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493978466315821059

View attachment 245533View attachment 245532
View attachment 245534
View attachment 245535

I've seen similar takes from other sources. idk what is real and what is rhetoric anymore...not that I ever knew....

 

[Goldhedge]

 

[Goldhedge]

Answers: Trump Transition data was passed to the CIA​

A friend makes an observation of an October 2021 Durham filing​

Techno Fog



Last week, we documented Special Counsel John Durham’s motion discussing the potential conflicts of interest of Michael Sussmann’s attorneys. That filing was important for a number of reasons, mainly because Durham stated that Sussmann’s client, Rodney Joffe (a federal contractor with access to “sensitive” data) “exploited” internet traffic data (domain name system, or DNS) pertaining to “the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”).”


We also asked why Joffe and Sussmann continued to push false allegations of Trump’s ties to Russia after the election. One could theorize that they made the Trump/Russia connection in the summer and fall of 2016 to hurt Trump politically. After all, the bogus story of a secret Alfa Bank/Trump Organization back-channel made it to Slate via Franklin Foer on October 31, 2016 – just before the November 8, 2016 presidential election, and not long after Sussmann went to the FBI to relay these same allegations.

But why continue to push a Trump/Russia hoax in February 2017?

It’s within the realm of possibilities that they wanted to continue to damage Trump, as this was the general goal of the political and bureaucratic establishment during the Trump years – especially in the early period, when Trump’s political power and his ability to implement his agenda would be at its height. It’s why James Comey leaked classified memos through his lawyer, why there were leaks against Flynn in early January 2017, and why Kevin Clinesmith falsified a CIA e-mail so that the FISA warrants against Carter Page could continue.

Or, perhaps Sussmann and Joffe wanted to spur additional intelligence community investigations into Trump. It is accurate to say that they were desperate to prove Trump’s links to Russia. So desperate, in fact, that they were providing manipulated data to the federal government to further false Trump/Russia conspiracies.

And consider whether Sussmann took this information to the CIA on behalf of a type of “whistleblower,” allowing Joffe to remain nameless.

What did the CIA do with that information?

Did the CIA pass it to the FBI, allowing Joffe to theoretically keep his hands clean and his identity unknown?

All good questions. We don’t have the answers – yet.

But there is an answer we do have. After Sussmann’s attorney responded to the Durham filing, stating that Sussmann provided the CIA with Executive Office of the President data from “when Barack Obama was president,” we theorized that this data was from the transition period because that’s when there would be access to Trump’s team:

If Sussmann’s attorney is telling the truth (never a given), then we suspect the Executive Office of the President data included that from the 74 day the Trump transition period (between the November 8, 2016 election and the January 20, 2017 inauguration) – which would still be spying on the incoming Trump Administration.

Then our friend Margot Cleveland reviewed a Durham filing in the Sussmann case from October 21, 2021 and put it all together:

Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland

Yes, Joffe targetted the EOP during the transition period, per the Government's Response to Motion for Bill of Particulars.

February 19th 2022


As the October 2021 filing states:

That would confirm the data Sussmann and Joffe passed to the CIA was from the Trump transition period. While Washington and the press focus on January 6, the more dangerous and anti-democratic acts occurred in the shadows in 2016 and 2017. They didn’t seize the Capitol because they didn’t have to. The FBI and the CIA were willing to do their bidding, operating in secret to spy on and undermine the President.

Predictably, after Durham filed his motion the establishment/left media downplayed its significance in two ways.

First, Charlie Savage of the New York Times noted that the data from the Executive Office of the President “came from Barack Obama’s presidency.” That’s a curious way of saying the transition period – especially when the data involved those associated with Trump. (The content of the data being more important than the timing of the data.)

Second, Philip Bump over at the Washington Post condemned the reaction to the Durham allegations and claimed “it’s not clear that it [the Trump Tower, Trump Apartment, Trump Transition/EOP data] was or that it was used for any reason other than normal tracking of potential threats.” To say that, Bump must ignore the political motivations of Sussmann and Joffe, and disregard the findings that these allegations they brought – whether to the FBI or the CIA – were found to be baseless.

What these writers and publications are missing, of course, is the outright scandal of the CIA collecting information on a sitting president.

Before I close, let me say a few more words about Philip Bump, a national correspondent for The Washington Post. This is the same guy who, in 2019, downplayed the theory that “biased FBI agents and other officials used faulty information to target Page to spy on the campaign.” In reality, the FBI agents were biased, the information was faulty, and the campaign was spied on.

Bump’s problems go beyond indefensible conclusions about matters of public record. His writing is just as bad, evidencing deficiency of thought. He has a rich history of blunders. These are weekly occurrences for him, though I’ll focus on just one article.

When discussing questions regarding the hacking of the DNC server, for example, Bump stated “This server thing shows one direction of sprawl, and a narrow one.” But sprawl is defined as “to spread or develop irregularly or without restraint.” We call it “suburban sprawl” because suburban developments spread in every direction (the sprawl) from an urban center. Sprawl across your bed and you leave little room for your partner. “Narrow”sprawl doesn’t make sense.

Or consider this Bump-ism when discussing some of the Carter Page allegations:

“Fox News personalities such as Hannity and his cadre of guests were simply walking backward, trying to find a hole in the wall. This is the hole they found, and they ran with it.”

Think about that last sentence for a moment. How can you run with a hole in the wall?

You can’t.

And that, my friends, is The Washington Post.

Answers: Trump Transition data was passed to the CIA

A friend makes an observation of an October 2021 Durham filing

technofog.substack.com

 

[Voodoo]

A vicious smear. Politics as usual. Not bigger than Watergate.
Only crime so far alleged is lying to FBI.

SO FAR.... Kinda a BIG point, lol. They've already laid the ground work for the others but have not filed or made public those allegations.

 

[gnome]

SO FAR.... Kinda a BIG point, lol. They've already laid the ground work for the others but have not filed or made public those allegations.

Statute of limitations for most computer crimes is 5 years...meaning they just expired. Hope is dimming this leads anywhere.

 

[Voodoo]

Computer crimes are the least of my concerns, and probably everyone else's. Plus, statute of limitations often only start the clock once you find there was a problem. So they can be a lot longer than just 5 years.

 

[ZZZZZ]

Statute of limitations for most computer crimes is 5 years...meaning they just expired. Hope is dimming this leads anywhere.

In sports terms, they ran out the clock.

 

[Cigarlover]

No one is sitting around waiting to wake up. I've talked with people on both sides of the isle and everyone is well aware that the entire federal Gov is as corrupt as it gets. In fact I don't know or haven't talked to anyone who doesn't see that our government is the problem.

The #1 question asked by all is what can we do about it. Sitting back waiting for the country and currency to implode isn't much of a plan. Waiting for justice also isn't much of a plan.
Clearly this country has been taken over by large interests that could care less about people and whose only interest is more power and control of everything.

 

[<SLV>]

No one is sitting around waiting to wake up. I've talked with people on both sides of the isle and everyone is well aware that the entire federal Gov is as corrupt as it gets. In fact I don't know or haven't talked to anyone who doesn't see that our government is the problem.

The #1 question asked by all is what can we do about it. Sitting back waiting for the country and currency to implode isn't much of a plan. Waiting for justice also isn't much of a plan.
Clearly this country has been taken over by large interests that could care less about people and whose only interest is more power and control of everything.

If we are lucky Russia will nuke DC and liberate us.

 

[Joe King]

The #1 question asked by all is what can we do about it. Sitting back waiting for the country and currency to implode isn't much of a plan.

It's the only plan there is that has any chance of success.

Goin' Rambo, ain't the answer. At this stage, Rambo will do nothing but get crushed and be used as propaganda to quell the thoughts of others who may be thinking of doing the same.

These things take time to play out.

Sorry if it's not playing out on your time schedule, but it ain't playing out on mine either. Just gotta be patient. All things come to pass, in their own time.

 

[Unca Walt]

Statute of limitations for most computer crimes is 5 years...meaning they just expired. Hope is dimming this leads anywhere.

Maybe your hope, gnome, but computer crime that is treason has no time limit.

Regarding your CNN-style claim the EO was spied on in the Obama Admin... That is totally debunked:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the October 2021 filing states:

That would confirm the data Sussmann and Joffe passed to the CIA was from the Trump transition period. While Washington and the press focus on January 6, the more dangerous and anti-democratic acts occurred in the shadows in 2016 and 2017. They didn’t seize the Capitol because they didn’t have to. The FBI and the CIA were willing to do their bidding, operating in secret to spy on and undermine the President.

Predictably, after Durham filed his motion the establishment/left media [and trolls] downplayed its significance in two ways.

First, Charlie Savage of the New York Times noted that the data from the Executive Office of the President “came from Barack Obama’s presidency.” That’s a curious way of saying the transition period – especially when the data involved those associated with Trump. (The content of the data being more important than the timing of the data.)

Second, Philip Bump over at the Washington Post condemned the reaction to the Durham allegations and claimed “it’s not clear that it [the Trump Tower, Trump Apartment, Trump Transition/EOP data] was or that it was used for any reason other than normal tracking of potential threats.” To say that, Bump must ignore the political motivations of Sussmann and Joffe, and disregard the findings that these allegations they brought – whether to the FBI or the CIA – were found to be baseless.

What these writers and publications are missing, of course, is the outright scandal of the CIA collecting information on a sitting president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Joe King]

The FBI and the CIA were willing to do their bidding, operating in secret to spy on and undermine the President.

I find it pretty sad that so many seem to be ok with that having happened, due to having been brainwashed into hating the guy.

Arguably the best potus in our lifetimes.

 

[Buck]

All things come to pass, in their own time.

some do...some take 40+ years to pass

in a world of rules and laws, the 'fact' any of this has gone on as long as it has, let alone, the 'fact' any of it is running in the first place, is a sign to me, they're not doing it right

laws and rules, adhered to, would have prevented this from occurring but the change in laws and rules is what has brought our current situation to life

here's something different, from 1967

in essence, what it says is:
the House of Representatives, as members of Congress should be allowed to negotiate Foreign Policy, along with the Senate, because the POTUS has too much authority on these matters and Congress needs to stop pussyfooting around

and it's a D who's pushing it as a 'good thing'

this country has been under attack for a very long time

 

[Joe King]

some do...some take 40+ years to

No, all do. Even if something takes 40 years, it still happens, right?
Ie: all, not some.

this country has been under attack for a very long time

Only since day 1
....and in time, those attackers will have their day, as nothing lasts forever.
Our job is to make sure that day isn't today.

 

[gnome]

Maybe your hope, gnome, but computer crime that is treason has no time limit.

Regarding your CNN-style claim the EO was spied on in the Obama Admin... That is totally debunked:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the October 2021 filing states:

That would confirm the data Sussmann and Joffe passed to the CIA was from the Trump transition period. While Washington and the press focus on January 6, the more dangerous and anti-democratic acts occurred in the shadows in 2016 and 2017. They didn’t seize the Capitol because they didn’t have to. The FBI and the CIA were willing to do their bidding, operating in secret to spy on and undermine the President.

Predictably, after Durham filed his motion the establishment/left media [and trolls] downplayed its significance in two ways.

First, Charlie Savage of the New York Times noted that the data from the Executive Office of the President “came from Barack Obama’s presidency.” That’s a curious way of saying the transition period – especially when the data involved those associated with Trump. (The content of the data being more important than the timing of the data.)

Second, Philip Bump over at the Washington Post condemned the reaction to the Durham allegations and claimed “it’s not clear that it [the Trump Tower, Trump Apartment, Trump Transition/EOP data] was or that it was used for any reason other than normal tracking of potential threats.” To say that, Bump must ignore the political motivations of Sussmann and Joffe, and disregard the findings that these allegations they brought – whether to the FBI or the CIA – were found to be baseless.

What these writers and publications are missing, of course, is the outright scandal of the CIA collecting information on a sitting president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama was still president until late January 2017 - ie during the transition.
I'm happy to wait and will be pleasantly surprised if anything comes of this.

 

[Goldhedge]

everyone is well aware that the entire federal Gov is as corrupt as it gets. In fact I don't know or haven't talked to anyone who doesn't see that our government is the problem.

which causes one to ponder....

What, or whom exactly corrupted them? You don't get elected one day and poof! you're corrupted... there's a systemic problem we haven't discussed what that might be.

NWO goons? Pedo pictures of you in bed with a minor? Videos? Satanists?

No one is sitting around waiting to wake up. I've talked with people on both sides of the isle and everyone is well aware that the entire federal Gov is as corrupt as it gets. In fact I don't know or haven't talked to anyone who doesn't see that our government is the problem.

The #1 question asked by all is what can we do about it. Sitting back waiting for the country and currency to implode isn't much of a plan. Waiting for justice also isn't much of a plan.
Clearly this country has been taken over by large interests that could care less about people and whose only interest is more power and control of everything.

America is the plum in the pudding and has been since its inception.

 

[Goldhedge]

Hillary Clinton's 'fake scandal' attack on Durham probe revives strategy from Whitewater era​

As investigators built case that first lady gave inaccurate testimony two decades ago, she unleashed attacks to undercut prosecutors.

By John Solomon
Updated: February 22, 2022

A quarter century ago as Whitewater prosecutors closed in on evidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton both gave factually inaccurate testimony, the then-first lady unleashed a blistering attack that stunned a capital city that in those days was far less rancorous.

Mrs. Clinton called the Whitewater probe "an effort to undo the results of two elections," claiming it was run by a "politically motivated prosecutor who is allied with the right-wing opponents of my husband."

Prosecutors have been "looking at every telephone call we've made, every check we've ever written, scratching for dirt, intimidating witnesses, doing everything possible to try to make some kind of accusation against my husband," she declared in that 1998 interview with NBC's "Today" show.

Twenty-four years later, Mrs. Clinton launched a similar attack on Special Counsel John Durham, the current federal prosecutor investigating the conduct of her 2016 campaign and its efforts to falsely portray Donald Trump as a Russian stooge.

Durham has indicted a lawyer for Clinton's campaign and revealed in a recent court filing that computer execs allied with her campaign exploited their access to Internet DNS data in an effort to spy on Trump and find derogatory information linking him to Russia.

She responded by calling the revelations "fake news" and suggesting they came close to meeting the "actual malice" standard for libel of public officials.

Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert W. Ray, who eventually wrote the final report accusing Mrs. Clinton of lying to investigators, found a healthy dose of déjà vu in her fresh attack on the Durham probe.

"I think one of the things that grew out of the independent counsel statute and the politicization of prosecution of, or investigation of, high-level government officials is that everybody came to the conclusion that the best way to defend was to go on offense in the political realm," Ray told Just the News in an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast.

Ray said the goal of such attacks is "to undermine the legitimacy of the prosecutor, and also to turn public sentiment against the prosecutor, to the point where, you know, the public just feels relief and exhaustion over any efforts to hold anybody accountable."

"So that's the playbook," he said.

Hillary Clinton's 'fake scandal' attack on Durham probe revives strategy from Whitewater era

As investigators built case that first lady gave inaccurate testimony two decades ago, she unleashed attacks to undercut prosecutors.

justthenews.com

 

[dacrunch]

No one is sitting around waiting to wake up. I've talked with people on both sides of the isle and everyone is well aware that the entire federal Gov is as corrupt as it gets. In fact I don't know or haven't talked to anyone who doesn't see that our government is the problem.

The #1 question asked by all is what can we do about it. Sitting back waiting for the country and currency to implode isn't much of a plan. Waiting for justice also isn't much of a plan.
Clearly this country has been taken over by large interests that could care less about people and whose only interest is more power and control of everything.

What "isle" was that? Isle of Man? (Great Platinum Nobles, btw!)

Answer me when I've crossed the aisle of the church to the other pews...

 

[Uglytruth]

What, or whom exactly corrupted them? You don't get elected one day and poof! you're corrupted... there's a systemic problem we haven't discussed what that might be.

Probably starts on the state level or earlier. I submitted a resume for a seat when it was open because of a death. I recieved a polite phone call telling me know. I knew it was a club I would never be welcome in.

 

[Thecrensh]

No one is sitting around waiting to wake up. I've talked with people on both sides of the isle and everyone is well aware that the entire federal Gov is as corrupt as it gets. In fact I don't know or haven't talked to anyone who doesn't see that our government is the problem.

The #1 question asked by all is what can we do about it. Sitting back waiting for the country and currency to implode isn't much of a plan. Waiting for justice also isn't much of a plan.
Clearly this country has been taken over by large interests that could care less about people and whose only interest is more power and control of everything.

I know you know this, but it ain't changing without some big shakeup.

Here are interviews with current and former Congressional reps who all pretty much describe the same thing; a completely corrupt and broken system that is "too broke to fix":

At this point...idk what can be done other than hang on for the ride and hope for the best.

 

[Uglytruth]

I know you know this, but it ain't changing without some big shakeup.

Here are interviews with current and former Congressional reps who all pretty much describe the same thing; a completely corrupt and broken system that is "too broke to fix":

At this point...idk what can be done other than hang on for the ride and hope for the best.

I think the "hang" part is right.........

 

[Goldhedge]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1496209475489103873

This morning a friend asked me why the Durham probe even matters, making the point that the damage is done and most people will never take the time to understand the details anyway.

It's a fair question, and worthy of a mini-thread in response...

Here's my opinion:
It matters because it's the first time we have overwhelming evidence that a sitting president intentionally interfered in the peaceful transition of power.

Not just "theories", actual verified evidence and documentation that have held up in multiple court cases to date.
44 launched an assault on our Republic by weaponizing the near unlimited power of the IC, the corporate media, and launching a literal witch hunt against anyone who questioned the matter.

This was a literal attack not just on 45, but on every single American citizen who voted.
The reason 44 chose this path was not just to punish a political rival, but to cover up even larger crimes against The People, committed not just by him but by previous administrations.

This saga isn't just a one-off, this is a window into the whole rotten machine.
If that's allowed to pass unchecked, without the People raising questions, then we deserve the authoritarian regime we get.

Those people suggesting digging into this is a pointless exercise are in fact accepting that we're merely serfs, and will always be serfs.

I say f that!
This corner of the internet has literally been half a decade ahead of the curve on this issue.

We haven't been wrong in the big picture sense, in fact nearly every revelation has shown more and more that we had this thing called near perfectly way back in the winter of '17.
And that TERRIFIES the elite.

Regular citizens, working together, unraveled a 21st century coup in real time and managed to spread the word to millions more. That's not meaningless or without value, no matter how Durham goes.

We must keep pushing forward, now more than ever.
Discerning truth and amplifying it is dangerous when you're doing so in opposition to the ruling powers. Yet, it must be done. Even at great risk.

And it makes me so proud to see so many small accounts, and some huge accounts, take on that challenge each day.
If citizens aren't willing to do the work to stay informed, especially in the midst of a (dis)information war, then we will never get out from under the boot of the State.

That's why it matters even now. At least, that's my opinion.

Thread by @GalacticRedPill on Thread Reader App

@GalacticRedPill: This morning a friend asked me why the Durham probe even matters, making the point that the damage is done and most people will never take the time to understand the details anyway. It's a...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[Cigarlover]

I know you know this, but it ain't changing without some big shakeup.

Here are interviews with current and former Congressional reps who all pretty much describe the same thing; a completely corrupt and broken system that is "too broke to fix":

At this point...idk what can be done other than hang on for the ride and hope for the best.

Good podcasts and good insight on what is really going on in DC.

 

[Goldhedge]

Durham Hints Russia Probe May Not Have Continued If Clinton Lawyer Hadn’t Lied​

Jon Dougherty
March 9, 2022

---

OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

---

A recent filing by special counsel John Durham notes that if just one thing had changed regarding the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign — so-called “Russiagate” — then the course of history would have been much different.

Namely, if a lawyer linked to the campaign of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, had been honest with the bureau, Just the News’ John Solomon noted in a column published earlier this week.

“It was an allegation that dogged Donald Trump for three years: a claim the Republican nominee-turned-president had a secret backdoor communications channel with the Kremlin. Repeated endlessly by the liberal media, the allegation was never true,” Solomon wrote, adding:
Now, Special Counsel John Durham is raising the tantalizing specter the FBI might never have investigated the claim during the height of the 2016 presidential election if the man who brought it to the bureau — Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann — had told the truth about its origins.

In his latest court filing this weekend, Durham gave his most sweeping assessment yet about the consequences of Sussmann hiding the fact that he brought the allegation to the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a computer executive aligned with the campaign.

“Had the defendant truthfully informed the FBI General Counsel that he was providing the information on behalf of one or more clients, as opposed to merely acting as a ‘good citizen,’ the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel might have asked a multitude of additional questions material to the case initiation process,” Durham told the court in a memo filed late Friday.

“Given the temporal proximity to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the FBI also might have taken any number of different steps in initiating, delaying, or declining the initiation of this matter had it known at the time that the defendant was providing information on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive at a private company,” he added.

Sussmann has been charged by Durham in his probe into the origins of the ‘Russiagate’ investigation with making a false statement to a federal investigator. Specifically, he claimed he was not working on behalf of any client when he fed then-FBI General Counsel James Baker allegations that Trump had a secret computer channel to the Kremlin.

Last month, lawyers for Sussmann asked a federal court to dismiss the allegation, claiming that it is not material to the case and that his speech was protected by the First Amendment.

Durham responded to the filing with a pointed rebuke, especially focusing on Sussmann’s claims that an alleged lie to a federal agent is protected speech.

“Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant — a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer — chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham wrote the judge.

“He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations,” he added. “Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect. The Court should therefore reject defendant’s invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct.”

He went on to say that he plans to deliver testimony at trial from a number of FBI and government witnesses that Sussmann’s falsehood was both material and relevant and likely influenced the course of the ‘Russiagate’ case.

“The expected testimony of multiple government witnesses will refute the defendant’s argument that the defendant’s false statement was immaterial,” Durham wrote. “As noted above, the government expects that current and former FBI employees will testify at trial that understanding the origins of data and information is relevant to the FBI in multiple ways, including to assess the reliability and motivations of the source.

“None of this is novel. An evaluation of a source can (and often does) influence the FBI’s decisions regarding its initial opening decisions and subsequent investigative steps. That alone is sufficient to establish materiality,” Durham’s filing added.

Durham Court Filing Reveals Clinton Lawyer's One Mistake Played Huge Role in Trump-Russia Probe After He Was Charged With Lying To FBI, Suggests Probe May Not Continued Much Longer If Not For That

This is a remarkable revelation.

conservativebrief.com

 

[engineear]

Good podcasts and good insight on what is really going on in DC.

HANG,is the key word.

 

[Joe King]

Durham Hints Russia Probe May Not Have Continued If Clinton Lawyer Hadn’t Lied

Sounds like they gots 'em a fall guy. Lol

Shame on him for taking advantage of our squeaky clean fbi and doj by leading them astray.

His actions could possibly end up soiling their pure-as-a-virgin reputation with the public.

Again, shame on him!

 

[gnome]

Playing devil's advocate...a reminder the only criminal charge here is a charge of lying to the FBI - and I'm less confident than before that they will even succeed convicting Sussman on that.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fed...utors-created-sideshow-sussmann-filing-2022-3

A federal judge called out John Durham's prosecutors for creating a 'sideshow' with a court filing that sent Trumpworld into a frenzy​

​

• A federal judge dinged John Durham's team for the way they handled a previous court filing.
• The judge called prosecutors out for creating a "sideshow" and questioned why they included some details in the filing.
• The right wing erupted over the filing last month and falsely claimed it showed that Clinton spied on Trump.

Sign up for our weekday newsletter, packed with original analysis, news, and trends — delivered right to your inbox.
Email address


By clicking ‘Sign up’, you agree to receive marketing emails from Insider as well as other partner offers and accept ourTerms of Service and Privacy Policy.

A federal judge dinged prosecutors from the special counsel John Durham's office for creating a "sideshow" with a court filing last month that former President Donald Trump and his allies falsely claimed provided proof that he was illegally spied on by the Clinton campaign.

At the center of the hearing was a conflict-of-interest motion that Durham's office filed in its ongoing case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The conflict motion contained almost no new information and highlighted potential conflicts of interest regarding Sussmann's legal representation. But right-wing news outlets and former President Donald Trump took several details in the filing out of context and falsely said that it showed the Clinton campaign illegally surveilled Trump.

Sussmann's legal team subsequently asked to strike those details from the motion, saying the filing was unnecessary because Sussmann had already understood the issues raised in it and waived any potential conflicts. They also accused Durham's team of operating in bad faith and saying the inclusion of those details was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool."


"Trials are unpredictable," US District Judge Christian Cooper said at Thursday's hearing. "I cannot tell you all of the ways these potential conflicts could play out, if at all."

The judge then asked Sussmann if he waived the potential conflicts of interest laid out in Durham's filing. "I do, your honor," Sussmann responded.

Cooper remarked on how easy it was for him to address the purported conflicts and for Sussmann to formally waive them.

"I didn't need any of that ancillary information to do that," the judge said, referring to the filing from Durham's office.


He also questioned why the prosecution filed the conflict-of-interest motion in the first place.

"Why not just come in, consent motion, colloquy?" he asked. "We could have done this in 15 minutes at a status conference."

Andrew DeFillipis, a prosecutor in Durham's office, pushed back, saying, "We just wanted to be extra careful, to create a factual record for the basis of the conflicts ... We just wanted a crystal clear factual record."

Sussmann's defense attorney, Sean Berkowitz, contested the prosecution's claims, saying that the conflict of interest filing had "inflammatory press results and things of that nature."


Cooper also appeared to criticize Durham's prosecutors, saying that "we have a lot of work to do in this case ... This particular dustup strikes me as a sideshow in many respects."

"I don't know why the information is in there," he later added.

However, the judge did not grant Sussmann's request to strike certain details from the conflict-of-interest motion.

"I extend a presumption of good faith," he said. "I don't ascribe any motives whatsoever. But for that and other reasons, I'm not going to strike anything in the record."


Cooper also alluded to the high-stakes nature of the case against Sussmann, warning that the proceedings are under a microscope.

"Until we swear in a jury in this case, you folks have an audience of one, and that's me," the judge said. "Just be mindful of that as we go forward."

Cooper set a later status conference to discuss Sussmann's motion to dismiss Durham's case against him.

"This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach," Sussmann's lawyers said in their motion for dismissal last month. The filing went on to say that while it has "long been a crime" to make false statements to the government, the law "criminalizes only false statements that are material," meaning statements that directly affect a specific government decision.


"By contrast, false statements about ancillary matters ... are immaterial and cannot give rise to criminal liability," the filing said.

Durham charged Sussmann last year with lying to the FBI during a conversation with then FBI general counsel James Baker in 2016. Durham's indictment said that Sussmann "lied about the capacity in which he was providing" allegations to the FBI about what he claimed was a "secret communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Russia's Alfa Bank.

The indictment said Sussmann lied to the FBI when he told Baker he wasn't working on behalf of any client. In fact, the indictment said, Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign, the tech executive Rodney Joffe, and the internet company Neustar.

Sussmann's motion to dismiss said that in the past, those who have been charged in connection to providing tips to the government have been prosecuted for lying to the FBI "only where the tip itself was alleged to be false, because that is the only statement that could affect the specific decision to commence an investigation."


When Sussmann met with Baker in September 2016, the filing said, he went "to provide a tip."

"There is no allegation in the Indictment that the tip he provided was false. And there is no allegation that he believed that the tip he provided was false," it continued.

"Rather, Mr. Sussmann has been charged with making a false statement about an entirely ancillary matter—about who his client may have been when he met with the FBI—which is a fact that even the Special Counsel's own Indictment fails to allege had any effect on the FBI's decision to open an investigation," the filing said.

Durham's office said last year that Sussmann's failure to disclose the capacity in which he was bringing the Trump-Alfa Bank allegation to the FBI "misled FBI personnel and deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and analysis, including the identities and motivations of Sussmann's clients."

 

[Joe King]

the inclusion of those details was "plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage,

Yea, never mind the fact that the other side politized the issue to begin with and inflamed the media to be against Trump. All that stuff is supposed to be okey dokey. How dare anyone question the origins of their witch hunt against Trump.

 

[the_shootist]

6 years and counting

 

[ABC123]

https://media.128ducks.com/file_store/74f6b1c7de3ba1bef98835c09ada46644c0880f79ddc7813f132d919d19b8238.mp4

Loading…

media.128ducks.com

 

[Goldhedge]

BREAKING: Durham Drops Bombshell Claim, Says Clinton Lawyer’s Lies Exposed!​

by Will

Special Counsel John Durham just dropped a major bomb about Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, a key player in the Russia hoax and resulting turmoil and one of the main targets of Durham’s investigation so far.

That bomb is that Durham’s team has uncovered a test between James Baker, the FBI General Counsel at the time, and Michael Sussman, a text that Durham is claiming shows Sussman lied to the FBI about his work on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. That text, dated Sept. 18, 2016, reportedly says:

“Jim – it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availibilty for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

According to Just the News, Durham’s prosecutors intend on using that test, particularly the part where he says he’s on his own, to prove that he lied. In their words from a recent motion:

“The defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, the defendant had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including (i) a technology executive (“Tech Executive-1”) at a U.S.-based Internet company (“Internet Company-1”), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign.”​

Why that claim is crucial in proving that he lied is that a year later he admitted that he approached the FBI not on his own, but on behalf of a client, saying:

We had a conversation, as lawyers do with their clients, about client 1 needs and objectives and the best course to take for a client. And so it may have been a decision that we came to together. I mean, I don’t want to imply that I was sort of directed to do something against my better judgment, or that we were in any sort of conflict.​

Getting caught in that lie is bad news for Sussmann. Not only will his credibility in future claims be diminished by being caught, but the text helps Durham prove his case that Sussman originally claimed that he wasn’t doing so on the behalf of any client when he approached the FBI, a claim that Sussman’s lawyers have disputed.

Up until now, they’ve attacked the allegation because Durham relied on only one witness in making it, saying:

“The Special Counsel has brought a false statement charge on the basis of a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Mr. Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting.”​

Now, with the text in hand (assuming it’s authentic), Durham can disprove that and show that Sussmann was in fact lying.

They’ve also alleged that even if Sussmann lied, the lie isn’t material. Durham disagreed on that point too. Describing why that lie is material, and thus important, Durham said:

“The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign.“​

This is big new, a major step forward in Durham’s case against Sussmann.

BREAKING: Durham Drops Bombshell Claim, Says Clinton Lawyer's Lies Exposed!

Special Counsel John Durham just dropped a major bomb about Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, a key player in the Russia hoax and […] More

trendingpolitics.com

 

[Goldhedge]

this fits in here somewhere...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511806967630729219

 

[Goldhedge]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511823658884476938

 

[ZZZZZ]

It's not too late to

Lock Her Up!
.
.