• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

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

the_shootist

Politically Gender Neutral
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
81,083
Reaction score
178,200
2 more weeks!
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
Brian Cates on Telegram

1649357003710.png
Apparently up until now, the Clintons and their cronies had gotten away with claiming attorney/client privilege over discourse that had absolutely nothing to do with a lawyer giving a client actual legal advice or counsel.

Hillary For America didn't have their General Counsel and his law firm hire the services of Fusion GPS or Rodney Joffe so they could give them legal advice.

It was done as a cover. They were using the lawyers as middlemen to funnel the money and the directions to the foot soldiers on the ground doing the dirty work.

Remember, the FEC just fined HFA and the DNC for illegally hiding their payments to Fusion GPS by laundering the money through Perkins Coie.

Durham has completely exposed the strategy and is nullifying it.

Sussmann & Elias weren't functioning as lawyers to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Chuck Dolan, Rodney Joffe; their job wasn't legal advice.

It was handling the money and giving directions in a criminal conspiracy.

 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
16,709
Reaction score
34,412
Location
South Floriduh
Oh YOWZA.
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains

Durham Continues To Expose Clinton's Private Spying Network That Targeted Trump & Associates​

Far From Retreating, Durham Keeps Expanding On His Claims About Hillary's Private Spies​

S7SaU2oY4SFO5qJ-VWXjmE58GeY4_TfTDwUnwXnLRU3jeaNSjiNgv-q6AUWQgdIpLqtg7XqljwFiJlHlyHZAZccyfnkz9FgC-Fal0UsBYU52-NPZ0EM5irLk_o5_wKY23h5OeZDjt1nHT3nbEQakPhNnmDJYUuT_Z2Q1gf1kai78BnKfDGOMUEhhIBfmvY3gYC-a-IHC6J7pV36ClRWeZXAbBDqdo8OXCBAV-HKceZd4IzEMv_tBbgzfJ_UqaEbefyNNAt49gsau_MxpaSB-7G-EBrTERbqOGbPFL9Z3ndzG9x739uPj27zgGDcqrxMMP727l5wwC1jGex_07hODMv1SE5e1=s0-d-e1-ft

Brian Cates
Apr 8




Late on the afternoon of April 6, the Special Counsel’s Office team led by prosecutor John Durham made a new filing, designated #64 in the case file.

And what a filing it was!

Right after Durham first revealed in a filing two months ago that Clinton had been directing and funding what was literally her own private spy network surveilling Donald Trump and his close associates, the Fake News Media leaped to do damage control.

Story after angry story appeared furiously asserting either that Durham had alleged no such thing about a ‘private spying network targeting Trump’ or if he had, that he was a crazy conspiracy theorist that needed to be quickly fired by Attorney General Merrick Garland.







But far from backing away from or downplaying the claim, despite the intense media criticism and pressure attempting to get him to moderate the allegations, Durham has used each subsequent filing in the Sussmann case to double down and expand on it.

Let’s go over the main points of this latest filing, which you can read for yourself right here.

Main page for the Durham case.

#64 in United States v. Sussmann (D.D.C., 1:21-cr-00582)

[Exhibit A was filed under seal and only judge and the two teams of attorneys can see it]

Exhibit B - #64, Att. #2 in United States vs. Sussmann

Exhibit C - #64, Att. #3 in United States vs. Sussmann




The main filing designated as Durham #64 is about this:

The Democratic National Committee [DNC], Hillary Clinton & all her campaign folks [designated as “Hillary For America” or “HFA”], Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, Neustar and Georgia Tech researchers involved in this case are all arguing to the court that they shouldn't have to unredact documents already provided to the Special Counsel or turn over other documents by invoking attorney client privilege.

Just by itself, Fusion GPS is claiming they can't turn over 1,455 documents because of the attorney/client privilege issue. Durham counters this claim by pointing out that only 18 emails and attachments out of the 1,455 have an attorney involved at all.


 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
Michael Sussmann's motion to dismiss has been denied. The judge rejects Sussmann's argument that his lies weren't material.

They're going to trial on May 16, absent further developments (continuance, plea, etc.)

Full doc:


 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
It's not going to work...

New filing by Sussmann today, 4/15/22

Memorandum in Opposition by MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN re 61 MOTION in Limine

Main Document: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.68.0.pdf

Attachment 1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.68.1.pdf

Attachment 2: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.68.2.pdf

Attachment 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.68.3_1.pdf

CourtListener (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.68.0.pdf)
Memorandum in Opposition – #68 in United States v. SUSSMANN (D.D.C., 1:21-cr-00582) – CourtListener.com
Memorandum in Opposition by MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN re 61 MOTION in Limine (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Berkowitz, Sean) (Entered: 04/15/2022)


Screen Shot 2022-04-15 at 7.44.57 PM.png
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains

Embrace The Suck, Hillary: Michael Sussmann & Marc Elias Had No Security Clearances​

And Because They Very Likely Handled Classified Information Stolen Out of the Executive Office of the President, That's A HUGE Issue​

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffe03fbb6-241a-4e4a-ad9e-16beecb7a2c0_640x640.jpeg

Brian Cates
Apr 12

These people are stupid.

While reading through all of the filings in the Michael Sussmann case, the Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer and political operative who has been indicted by Special Counsel John Durham on exactly one single count of lying to a federal official, I kept wondering what other charges Durham could indict Sussmann for, should he choose to.

And I suddenly realized that a major charge that Sussmann could be hit with has been staring us all in the face ever since Durham revealed that Hillary Clinton’s private spies had taken data from the Executive Office of the President and used it in an updated and revised version of their Alfa Bank hoax that Clinton’s private dirty tricksters had then delivered to the CIA.

Durham made his filing revealing the private contractor network electronically spying on Trump & his associates for Hillary Clinton on February 11, 2022.

That was more than two months ago. And I confess I didn’t fully grasp what Durham was trying to show us all in that filing.

You see, I knew that Joffe and his fellow Georgia Tech researchers working with him on this spying project had security clearances. I mean, they’re federal contractors hired to do cybersecurity work for the government. They by **necessity** have to get high level national security clearances to access the kind of places they do their cybersecurity work.

Like, let’s say for no reason whatsoever, just an example…the Executive Office of the President.


 

ZZZZZ

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
9,870
Reaction score
22,983
Location
Northern Arizona
Shakespeare was right.
 

ZZZZZ

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
9,870
Reaction score
22,983
Location
Northern Arizona
Hillary had a lot of practice wiping a server with a cloth.
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
Special Counsel John Durham filed something very significant in the Michael Sussmann case -

How Sussmann and his client (Joffe) used data from the Trump Transition - including when Trump was in the White House.

The CIA findings that this data was not plausible and was "user created"

And the immunity Durham has given to witnesses - including one from Fusion GPS.


 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
1650125998325.png

This proves that Hillary Clinton’s private spy network comprised of federal cyber contractors were indeed abusing and exploiting their access to federal communications collection databases and that they were mining those databases for non public data targeting Trump and his close associates.

These criminal cyber contractors were stealing federal data [some of it very likely classified] off the databases and giving it to other Clinton political operatives such as Michael Sussmann.

And now Durham has just unveiled definitive evidence these criminal cyber contractors were illegally stealing data from out of the EOP during the transition period after Trump won the 2016 election and giving that stolen data to the Clinton campaign’s dirty tricks operatives.

 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
he “represents a client who does not want to be known,” [I'll bet!}

Former Clinton Campaign Lawyer Made False Statements To Second Government Agency: Durham​

BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, APR 16, 2022 - 08:30 PM

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who is accused of lying to the FBI when he claimed he was not handing over information about then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016, made false statements to CIA officers in a meeting after Trump was sworn into office, according to new filings by Special Counsel John Durham’s team.


Sussman told James Baker, at the time the FBI’s general counsel, that he had “time-sensitive (and sensitive)” information to share before the pair met, according to a text message recently disclosed by prosecutors. In the same message, Sussman claimed he was “coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company,” even though he’d been directed to deliver the information by Rodney Joffe, a technology executive, and billed the Clinton campaign for the work, according to prosecutors.

Sussman provided Baker in a Sept. 19, 2016, meeting with white papers that alleged Trump’s business had a secret channel with a Russian bank, allegations the FBI later determined were untrue.

On Feb. 9, 2017, Sussman met with CIA officers—where he also made false statements, according to the new filings.

A memorandum introduced by the special counsel’s team and penned by a CIA official said that Sussman provided documents and thumb drives that he claimed contained data related to potential Russian activities linked with Trump.

Sussman “advised that he was not representing a particular client,” according to the notes. Instead, he said he was conveying information from “contacts” who he believed “were acting in good faith and out of a sense of loyalty to the USG,” or U.S. government.

That contradicts how Sussman told a former CIA employee, who was said to have helped set up the February meeting, that he “represents a client who does not want to be known,” according to notes of the meeting taken by the former employee.

It also contradicts testimony Sussman delivered to the House Intelligence Committee. Under oath, Sussman said (pdf) he received the information “from a client of mine.”

Sussman said he learned of the information by the summer of 2016 but only came forward months later because President Barack Obama ordered an intelligence review of possible Russian interference in elections.

“This information seemed to fall roughly within that, and so I thought that might be—or my client thought that that might be something that was relevant for those that were gathering information regarding foreign-based actors,” Sussman said.


Michael Sussman in an undated interview. (CNN/Screenshot via NTD)

Another apparently false statement relates to what Sussman said during the meeting with the CIA concerning his previous meeting with the FBI

Sussman gave the same information regarding the alleged secret channel to the CIA that he had to Baker. Sussman told the officers he had previously contacted Baker but on a “similar, though unrelated, matter,” according to the memo.

In front of the congressional panel, Sussman said he had already passed on the information to the FBI before he met with the CIA.


In context, the defendant’s statement that he had provided the FBI with ‘similar, though unrelated’ allegations is false, or at best, misleading,” Durham’s team said in one of the new filings.

Further, the CIA later concluded both the claim about the secret channel and a separate allegation, which was brought to the CIA and not the FBI, concerning Russian-made phones was “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” and “conflicted with [itself],” according to the special counsel’s office.

Sussman’s lawyers in a separate filing said their client’s statement to the CIA “cannot possibly be part of the charged offense (concerning a single, different statement), and it was not made contemporaneously with the charged crime,” adding, “In fact, it was made five months later, in different circumstances, to a different agency, in a way that conflicts with the Special Counsel’s theory that Mr. Sussmann lied to Mr. Baker to help Hillary Clinton win the election—because the election was long since over.”

The lawyers are not objecting to the admission of one of the statements Sussman made to the House panel concerning the CIA meeting but are objecting to the introduction of any evidence concerning the accuracy of the data he provided to the CIA.

They also reserved the right “to introduce evidence rebutting the Special Counsel’s claims, including evidence that will demonstrate that Mr. Sussmann disclosed to CIA personnel that he had a client and that he had worked with political clients.”

According to the CIA memo, Sussman did mention that his law firm was involved with Democrats, including Clinton, but also said that work was unrelated to his reasons for contacting the CIA.

Sussman’s trial is slated to start on May 16 at federal court in Washington.

 

the_shootist

Politically Gender Neutral
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
81,083
Reaction score
178,200
Cool story bro's...when will the arrests start?

ZC01LmdpZg.gif
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,617
Reaction score
5,873
Cool story bro's...when will the arrests start?

ZC01LmdpZg.gif
I think Sussman is busted, just the legal process takes forever. Beyond Sussman, I'm skeptical.

I mean, Q promised us the hag's head on a platter 5 years ago.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-04-16 at 9.10.09 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-04-16 at 9.10.09 AM.png
    48.4 KB · Views: 6

the_shootist

Politically Gender Neutral
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
81,083
Reaction score
178,200
Yeah, that's what I thought, same with the stolen election
1650268183319.png
 
Last edited:

Uglytruth

Super Moderator
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
20,590
Reaction score
50,439

Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaign’s False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate


Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges. He is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as “not technically plausible” and “user created.” He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct. Finally, Durham offers further details on the involvement of Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and former British spy Christopher Steele in the alleged false claims.


Recently, Durham revealed extremely damaging evidence against Sussmann. However, this is the first full description of the Clinton associates refusing to cooperate under the Fifth Amendment. Durham noted that he gave immunity to an individual identified only as “Research 2.” He then noted that this was made necessary by the refusal to cooperate by key Clinton associates:

“The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 – over a month prior to the defendant’s Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2’s immunity in order to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendant’s meeting with the FBI.”
[Emphasis added] For his part, Sussmann and the Clinton associates have sought to use attorney-client privilege to keep evidence from Durham.

Durham also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele. Indeed, the new requested immunized testimony would come from a Tech executive who allegedly can share information on meetings with Elias and Steele.

The Alfa Bank hoax and Sussmann’s efforts paralleled the work of his partner Elias at the law firm Perkins Coie in pushing the Steele Dossier in a separate debunked collusion claim. The Federal Election Commission recently fined the Clinton Campaign and the DNC for hiding the funding of the dossier as a legal cost by Elias at Perkins Coie.

“Durham notes that both the CIA and FBI were sent on an effective wild goose chase by the Clinton campaign. He notes that the government found the allegations to be manufactured and not even technically possible. He refers to the CIA in the following passage:
Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.”
This dovetails with the statements of the Clinton associates themselves who were worried about the lack of support for the Russian collusion claims. “Researcher 1” features prominently in those exchanges.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed “tech executive” allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed “university researchers” who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.” The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely “was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but ‘a red herring,’” according to the indictment.

“Researcher-1” repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, “How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

“Researcher-1” allegedly further warned, “We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?”

It appears that the “time to regroup” has passed with the issuance of immunity deals to compel testimony.
Here is the filing:

US-v-Sussmann-04162022-US-Filing
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains

Clinton Campaign: Fusion GPS provided legal advice​

And why Clinton will lose the "privilege" fight.​

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F70710e62-4791-42de-8e55-b956476aabf1_400x400.jpeg

Techno Fog

Durham: Tech Exec Working with Clinton-Tied Lawyer Spied on Trump Tower,  White House | National Review

The battle over documents and e-mails in the Michael Sussmann case just got hotter.
Back in August 2017, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, explaining how his firm was retained to gather “lots of facts about Donald Trump.” He admitted that Fusion GPS met with reporters leading up to the 2016 election to spread opposition research against then-candidate Trump.

The context of Perkins Coie’s retention of Fusion GPS was further explained in a book co-authored by Simpson and Fusion GPS co-founder Peter Fritsch. They documented an April 20, 2016 meeting with Mark Elias (Perkins Coie partner and counsel for the DNC/Clinton Campaign), where Elias requested their services for opposition research:


Now the stories have changed.
Fusion GPS is no longer an opposition research firm, and they weren’t hired to dig-up dirt against Trump. Instead, they would have you believe, after the phony dossier and the Alfa Bank hoax, that Fusion GPS was retained to provide legal advice to the Hillary Clinton Campaign. Remarkable.

Background
On April 6, Durham filed this motion to compel in the Michael Sussmann case, requesting the court require the production of “emails and attachments between and among” Perkins Coie, Rodney, Rodney Joffe, and Fusion GPS. These emails and documents, according to Durham, “appear or involve or relate to” Fusion GPS’s provision of research and media services to Hillary for America, the DNC, and Perkins Coie. (Some documents had been produced pursuant to grand jury subpoenas dating back to the 2021.)


Today’s Filings
Faced with this pressure, today there was a flurry of filings from interested entities in the Sussmann case, seeking to intervene to petition the court to keep these emails and documents secret. The DNC, Rodney Joffe, Perkins Coie, and Hillary for America all filed motions to intervene and memorandums in opposition to Durham’s motion to compel.

Notably, we saw arguments to the court that Fusion GPS wasn’t retained for opposition research. Hillary for America, for example, asserted “attorney-client privilege and work product protection over communications and work product of its attorneys (at Perkins Coie) and their consultant (Fusion GPS).” In support of that motion, Hillary for America included declarations from John Podesta, Robby Mook, and their attorney, Marc Elias. Declarations which contradict the public record.

To prove my point, John Podesta declared that to his knowledge, Perkins Coie has “consistently maintained” confidentiality, despite the fact that Perkins Coie (Sussmann in particular) assisted in distributing to the press the materials and allegations prepared by Fusion GPS and other researchers. Compare Podesta’s declaration to Sussmann’s December 2017 testimony (h/t FoiaFan):



Not to be outdone, Robby Mook (Hillary’s campaign manager) told the court that he believed that contractors for Perkins Coie – which would include Fusion GPS – were providing “legal services and legal advice” to the Clinton campaign. Unfortunately for Hillary for America, Mook’s belief is insufficient for the purposes of privilege.

Clinton lawyer Mark Elias also submitted a declaration, stating the role of Fusion GPS was to “provide consulting services in support of the legal advice” Perkins Coie and Elias were providing their clients. This contradicts the Elias’s own statements cited above.

Fusion GPS, in its filing today, made similar arguments: “Elias retained Fusion to expressly support his legal advice . . . and the retention specifically contemplated the need for such advice for potential and ongoing litigation.” This is the pattern of Fusion GPS, which previously refused to produce correspondence in the Alfa Bank (Fridman, et al.) case.

Having already produced thousands of pages of materials requested by grand jury subpoenas, they’re all desperate to keep these remaining records secret. We can’t help but think the information is damaging. How damaging might it be? Damaging enough for this fight.

We also can’t help but believe Hillary for America, Fusion GPS, Sussmann, and the rest of them will lose this fight to keep these records secret. Here’s a quick rundown of why (Durham’s motion to compel goes into more detail on the legal arguments, if you’re curious) Durham will likely get these documents and e-mails:
  1. The actual work was political, not legal. Previous statements confirm that Fusion GPS was retained for political research, and not for “legal advice” or for the purposes of litigation. Fusion was hired to perform “political work” – specifically, “deep research on Trump.” As Simpson and Fritsch wrote, Elias “loved” the Trump/Russia narrative and “Fusion’s research team would soon be hired and given wide latitude to go where the story led it.” As Durham observed, Fusion GPS wasn’t providing legal advice when it met with Rodney Joffe or promoted the Alfa Bank allegations.
  2. Fusion GPS shared its findings with the U.S. government and the press (related to #1). I won’t provide all contacts, but will summarize some briefly. Christopher Steele met with the FBI in July 2016, and continued his contacts with them until he was terminated as a source for his contacts with David Corn. The FBI would later use Bruce Ohr as a conduit to Steele. Fusion GPS would meet with reporters leading up to the 2016 election and pressure newsrooms and reporters to publish the Alfa Bank hoax. Likewise, Sussmann would provide the Fusion GPS opposition research to reporters
  3. The “privilege” was always a pretext. In Fusion GPS’s initial meeting with Marc Elias, he said “Fusion would only be reporting to him” for “legal reasons: if Fusion’s communications were with a lawyer, they would be considered privileged and kept confidential.” Elias then structured the retention agreement with Fusion GPS to be for “legal advice” – despite their conversation that Fusion GPS would be conducting opposition research. Or are we to believe that the mighty Marc Elias needs legal advice from Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele?
Finally, keep in mind there are some important dates coming up in the Sussmann case:

April 20, 2022: There will be a hearing on Sussmann’s motion in limine to preclude evidence and on his motion to exclude the government’s proposed expert witness testimony.

April 27, 2022: The court will hear the motion to compel. We expect the Court to require production - date uncertain.

Stay tuned.

 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
start at 2:40

DURHAM ZEROING IN ON CLINTON'S PUBLIC TWEETS RE: ALFA BANK IN SUSSMAN CASE​

Sussman REALLY doesn’t want Durham to use HRC tweets as evidence, but unfortunately for him, both her and her campaign staff’s public statements paint a timeline.
 

ZZZZZ

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
9,870
Reaction score
22,983
Location
Northern Arizona
Perkins Coie is the same Deplorable Demoncrap Operatives for Hire law firm that Barry Soetoro used to evade all the lawsuits challenging his eligibility.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,165
Reaction score
67,254
Location
Qmerica
The Durham Trial Begins | Crossroads | Clip

Watch the Full Episode https://ept.ms/TwitterVFreeSpeechYT.

Special counsel John Durham’s case against former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussman is going on trial, and will focus on Sussman allegedly lying to the FBI about his involvement in creating the false Trump-Russia narrative.

 

Uglytruth

Super Moderator
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
20,590
Reaction score
50,439
Perkins Coie is the same Deplorable Demoncrap Operatives for Hire law firm that Barry Soetoro used to evade all the lawsuits challenging his eligibility.
How many layers deep is that? Will it come out? What would be the ramifications.

Who called out barry's birth cert?
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
16,709
Reaction score
34,412
Location
South Floriduh
I think Sussman is busted, just the legal process takes forever. Beyond Sussman, I'm skeptical.

I mean, Q promised us the hag's head on a platter 5 years ago.
That was not Q. The reference was an anonymous poster.
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains

Breaking Down The Flurry Of Legal Filings By Clinton Campaign Associates In Durham Case​

BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, APR 21, 2022

Authored by Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In a coordinated legal action between a number of Hillary Clinton operatives and associates, almost two dozen separate documents were simultaneously filed on April 19 in special counsel John Durham’s case against former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.


(Getty Images, Justice Department; Illustration by The Epoch Times)

This sudden flurry of mass filings included responses from former Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook, Clinton campaign lead lawyer Marc Elias, contractors Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign itself, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The trigger for the flurry of filings was a request by Durham to unseal a number of emails involving the parties. The emails are currently being withheld on very questionable grounds of attorney–client privilege. Based on the coordinated filings, it appears that a large number of important people associated with the Clinton campaign are very concerned about the information in those emails becoming public.

Based on available metadata, it appears as if most of the individuals involved in Clinton’s scheme to vilify Trump with claims of Russia collusion were all communicating with each other as that scheme unfolded in real time.

The first person who filed in response to Durham’s request was Rodney Joffe, the tech executive who produced data that purportedly tied Trump to Russia. Joffe had been promised a top government job in case of a Hillary Clinton election victory.

Joffe claimed in his filing that his communications should be treated as privileged because they were part of his attorney-client relationship with Sussmann. Joffe was indeed a client of Sussmann’s starting in 2015. But, in an unexpected and perhaps unintentional comment, Joffe also disclosed that he had hired Sussmann specifically to advise him how to share sensitive information concerning Trump with government agencies—without revealing his identity and thereby exposing himself to potential liability.

In effect, Joffe publicly admitted that he hired Sussmann to take information about Trump to the FBI. The problem for Sussmann is that he’s been charged with lying about exactly that point. Sussmann claimed–in an email to then FBI General Counsel James Baker–that he wasn’t taking the information to the FBI on behalf of any client but instead was merely acting as a good Samaritan.

If Joffe throwing Sussmann under the proverbial bus wasn’t bad enough, the next filing was even worse for Sussmann. It came from Clinton campaign operatives Fusion GPS who also want their emails to be withheld from Durham.

In order to obtain the benefit of attorney–client privilege, Fusion now claims to have assisted Sussmann and his law firm with legal matters.

That claim is demonstrably false as Fusion’s main role—acknowledged by Fusion’s owners Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch in their book—was to conduct opposition research on Trump and seed those stories with the media.

To make matters even worse, Simpson and Fritsch admitted that in writing in their 2019 book “Crime in Progress.” It appears as if Fusion’s lawyers didn’t read their client’s book ahead of their filing. This blunder won’t have gone unnoticed by Durham’s team.

The next filing came from Perkins Coie, the legal firm for which Clinton campaign lawyers Sussmann and Elias worked in 2016. Perkins didn’t want to disclose any of its emails either, but the excuse was a lot simpler. The firm noted that Elias had left the company last year and had taken all of the related files with him.

A separate submission came from Elias himself. Elias, a well-known Democratic Party lawyer, made an argument that essentially mirrored that of Fusion, namely that Fusion was providing Perkins Coie with input that was related to legal advice, and any communications were therefore covered by privilege. Elias failed to address the basic fact that Fusion had been hired to collect and disseminate opposition research to the media. Elias similarly didn’t address that Sussmann himself had disseminated Fusion’s stories to the media, as well as to the FBI, thereby piercing any pretense of attorney–client privilege.

But the most interesting filing came from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook. Like everyone else, Mook’s main objective was to claim that everything that had been done took place within a legal advice relationship. But unlike the others, Mook didn’t actually claim that everything was above board. Instead, he repeatedly asserted that he thought everything was done above board.

In essence, Mook’s filing essentially shifted the blame onto Elias and the other Clinton operatives. Mook’s apparent refusal to confirm that everything was done legally might end up showcasing Mook as the weak link in the Clinton campaign’s efforts to cover up the origins of the Russiagate scandal. This development is something that Durham will no doubt have taken note of.

The overarching problem with all these claims of privilege is that by legal necessity they have to be based on legal advice. If the task at hand wasn’t about legal advice—such as Fusion pushing false stories about Trump to the media—then there is no attorney-client privilege.

With that backdrop in mind, Fusion GPS claimed in its filing that it was retained by then-partner Elias at Perkins Coie to “assist in providing legal advice to its clients, the Hillary for America Campaign Committee and the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign. As we noted earlier, Elias’s own submission mirrored this claim.

But there’s a huge problem when we compare these new claims with an Oct 24, 2017 letter from Perkins Coie, which officially detailed its retention and hiring of Fusion on April 11, 2016.

Matthew Gerringer, general counsel for Perkins Coie, noted that Fusion approached Perkins Coie in early March 2016. Gerringer stated that Fusion expressed an interest in its continuation of “research regarding then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump,” research that “Fusion GPS had conducted for one or more other clients during the Republican primary contest.”

And it wasn’t just Perkins Coie that was saying this. In their 2019 book, Fusion’s owners told a very similar story, specifically that they had pitched the idea to Elias that they would continue to collect opposition research on Trump on Elias’s behalf. There was never any mention from either Fusion or Elias of legal services or legal advice.

Fusion appears to have now twisted the meaning of its engagement, stating that it wasn’t really doing opposition research and media outreach, but instead was focused on privileged investigative work and analysis.

There are several problems with Fusion’s assertion. Dossier author Christopher Steele —who had been hired by Fusion to push Trump Russia collusion stories—told a UK court in May 2017 that he was directed by Fusion GPS to speak with a number of media outlets on several different occasions.

Steele testified that in September 2016 he had personally briefed a large number of journalists at Fusion’s instruction. Those journalists were from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker, and CNN. In October 2016, Steele was instructed once again to speak to the NY Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, and Mother Jones.

Based on Steele’s stories, many of these outlets subsequently published extremely damaging stories about Trump–Russia collusion. None more so than Mother Jones’s David Corn, who not only put out an article discussing the contents of the dossier just ahead of the 2016 election but also shared Steele’s dossier reports with James Baker of the FBI. Notably, Baker was the same person who met with Sussmann in September 2016.

Additionally, there were also multiple communications that took place between the owners of Fusion, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, and various corporate media reporters during this same time frame.

In a flurry of conversations on Oct. 5, 2016, Fusion’s Fritsch reached out to Tom Hamburger of The Washington Post, providing supposed DNS data claiming links between a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Fritsch then provided the same data to Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News. Fritsch also provided NBC’s Matthew Mosk with a ZIP file of data in an email containing the subject line: Dude this is huge.

Just a few weeks later, on Oct. 18, 2016, Fritsch wrote to Reuters’ Mark Hosenball on Oct 18, 2016, telling him “Do the F***ing alfa bank secret comms story. It is hugely important…”

The actions of Fusion at the behest of Elias had nothing to do with legal advice. They did, however, have everything to do with establishing a false narrative, one that had been crafted by these Clinton operatives themselves–which is precisely why they are now panicking about their emails being released to Durham.

But the flurry of filings wasn’t the only major development in the Durham investigation. In a subsequent hearing on Wednesday, a Durham prosecutor told Obama appointee Judge Christopher Cooper that the project to link Trump and Russia through DNS data had actually originated with Joffe. The prosecution stated that Joffe’s plan was carried out through the help of Clinton campaign agents. Durham’s team also revealed that there were meetings between Elias, Sussmann and Joffe during which Joffe was allegedly encouraged to create “imprints” that would tie Trump to Russia through data.

It’s not yet known exactly how Durham’s office came to know about the meeting between Elias, Joffe, and Sussmann, but if such a meeting actually did take place, it would completely destroy any pretense that the relationship between these parties had anything to with providing legal services. This discovery also could land Elias and Joffe in significant legal trouble for lying in their filings to the court.

 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
Handy graphic...

photo_2022-04-22_11-37-51.jpg
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
foreign poly jokes

photo_2022-04-22_11-46-41.jpg
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains

Gonzalo Lira IS ALIVE - Cirillo claims in Deleted Tweet - Inside Russia Report​

 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
17,630
Location
Instant Gratification Land

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
photo_2022-04-22_19-36-09.jpg

Here is the 2021 Grand Jury Subpoena from Special Counsel Durham to Georgia Tech, et al

Demands records re:

1) The Alfa Bank/Trump hoax

2) The purported use of Russian Yotaphones in Trump's vicinity

HT https://twitter.com/UndeadFoia (follow him if you're still on twitter...)


photo_2022-04-22_19-46-51.jpg


Developments in the Michael Sussmann case -

Special Counsel John Durham has "issued trial subpoenas to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee."

If they want to keep privileged Fusion GPS communications, they're gonna have to do it under oath.

Good luck with that.

 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
"Special counsel John Durham issued trial subpoenas for members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee as he pushed his theory of a “joint venture” in the case against Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann, who represented the Clinton campaign, and Rodney Joffe."

"Durham pushed back against Sussman Consel Saturday."

“The goal of the joint venture could not have been more clear: it was to gather and disseminate derogatory non-public information regarding the internet activities of a political candidate and his associates,” he wrote.

“And that venture was far from collateral to the charged crime. Indeed, the above-described joint venture was the very project that led Tech Executive-1 to rely upon the defendant’s services; the very project that gave rise to the Russian Bank-1 allegations; the very project that prompted agents of the Clinton Campaign to meet with Tech Executive-1; and the very project that caused the defendant to meet with the FBI General Counsel and lie to him about the clients who were behind all of this work," Durham said.

 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
So the Hilary Campaign lawyers are attempting to utilize an insane defense strategy. They committed treason, and are claiming that they should not be prosecuted for their crimes because the case is “incoherent and too complicated for a jury to understand”.

This is why these high level crime organizations use so many proxies. To convolute and distort their network to make it difficult to discover and prosecute if they were to get caught. As well as obviously insulate the people at the top.

The Clinton legal team stooping to this level indicates they are running out of options. And the response from Durham was the legal equivalent of saying “That bullshit isn’t going to work, we caught you.”

He cited the Maxwell case as a legal precedent that there does not need to be a defined pact in writing to prove a “conspiracy”. Going on to cite the proof of the greater conspiracy network.

Pause. Clinton campaign lawyers have been indicted and are implicated in a literal “conspiracy” as per the US DOJ… The corrupt left-wing media simply refuse to acknowledge this reality. Therefore their sheep don’t know anything about this case and their sense of reality manipulated by the omission of fact.

Citing the Maxwell case was a not so subtle jab to the Clinton camp. It was a message. A not so friendly reminder that we are prosecuting their pedo friends in a highly complex federal conspiracy case as we speak. We are coming for all of them.

Everyone should feel incredibly motivated by the posture of the Durham team and their no-nonsense approach to this case. Don’t get discouraged just because you don’t see headlines on MSM. The Revolution will not be televised.

-Clandestine

See filing below

photo_2022-04-24_00-21-38.jpg


 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,165
Reaction score
67,254
Location
Qmerica
How many layers deep is that? Will it come out? What would be the ramifications.

Who called out barry's birth cert?
Ooh ooh djt djt!
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Sr Midas Sup +++
Survivor
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
69,514
Reaction score
153,755
Location
Rocky Mountains
Amazing - the breadth and reach of the government's ability to know everything you've ever done...

Special Prosecutor Filing Outlines Clearest, Most Detailed, Construct of Hillary Clinton Joint Venture Conspiracy to Fabricate Trump-Russia Narrative

April 23, 2022

durham-knock-knock-2-300x258.jpg


In a very late-night filing by Special Counsel John Durham {pdf HERE}, in the case against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann, the special counsel gives the most detailed construct of the “joint venture” between the Clinton team and allies to fabricate a Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory against Donald Trump in 2016.

As we have noted, Durham is focused on the people outside government who fabricated information and triggered years of false accusations against Donald Trump, which ultimately included the creation of a special counsel, Robert Mueller.

John Durham has not touched any of the players inside government within any of his filings, with the exception of former FBI legal counsel James “Jim” Baker, who is a witness and gave testimony for three days to a grand jury. Durham will not touch anyone inside government [fn¹].

Durham is focused on who, how and why they originated the Trump-Russia lies, and whether any laws were broken as they pushed those lies into government institutions which created four years of crisis for the government and former President Trump. Within this filing, Durham focuses on the “joint venture”, or what can be described as a conspiracy to manufacture and/or defraud the government.

I have tried to put clarity on the filing by outlining who/what the terms are. DETAILS:

photo_2022-04-23_15-01-09.jpg


As you can see, the filing speaks for itself in outlining the origination of the conspiracy. Durham continues….

Durham-Sussmann-Joffe-1-v4.jpeg


{SOURCE DOCUMENTS}​

These are essentially the players who fabricated the Trump-Russia narrative.

David Dagon (“Researcher-2”), a researcher tasked by Rodney Joffe to fabricate connections between Alfa Bank and Trump, was given immunity in exchange for his cooperation with the special counsel. Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago was also granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for her cooperation with the special counsel.

Suffice to say, Durham knows what they did and how they did it. Now, he needs to prove it by using the evidence the conspirators have among their own documents and discussions.

The current court battle is circling around various lawyers and groups saying they have attorney-client privileges in order to attempt to avoid document production and/or testimony that will put them in legal jeopardy. The Clinton Campaign is claiming communication with Fusion is privileged. Fusion is claiming communication with Perkins Coie is privileged. Perkins Coie is claiming they hired Fusion GPS for legal services, etc. etc. etc.

It takes much more time, but John Durham is working through each of the privilege claims in court, and so far, he has been successful in compelling compliance.

♦ A frequent question: Why didn’t Durham charge Rodney Joffe yet? It’s a good question, and the answer is likely because he’s building that case around something else. Here’s my suspicion.

You will remember, back in 2016, 2017 and 2018, when I said the Clinton team seem to have some kind of “direct portal” into government databases. There was some process clearly evident where the Clinton campaign itself had access to government databases.

We speculated about all kinds of contractors helping her, etc. This is entirely separate from what Fusion GPS and other participants were doing to data-mine information. This is not the people inside government connected to spygate (NSA, Fusion, etc), this is a portal specific to the Clinton campaign itself.

I always called this network the “Clinton Portal“, and the fingerprints from it just kept surfacing as the media described Trump-Russia connections, and then campaign officials would amplify. I’ve said that since mid 2016, and I retained that view throughout. Clinton’s campaign operation was data mining some government database, somehow. The question was who and how?

Rodney Joffe is the explanation that answers that question. Joffe exploiting contractor access to government databases (GA Tech via DARPA), in combination with his access to data from Neustar, gave him a unique position. Joffe was Clinton’s Portal.

My hunch is that Durham is holding back on Joffe because accessing government databases, via a government contract (DARPA) that was not given for that intent, is a bigger set of charges.

Creating intentional fraud is one aspect…. they are all busted. However, using federally contracted access to government databases to exploit information, then fraudulently manipulating that information for the expressed intent on defrauding the same government, is a much heavier charge.

And that’s exactly what Rodney Joffe did, on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

fusion-gps-glenn-simpson-w-hillary-clinton-and-nellie-ohr-e1539380694796.jpeg


fn¹ – No one in government will be touched. This entire article is talking about the people in/around the Clinton campaign. Only the Clinton campaign. Nothing else except the Clinton campaign. I rely on readers to be intelligent enough to see the subject and draw a distinction from Govt and Non Govt.

This article, the entirety of it as it is written, is focused on OUTSIDE government. JOHN DURHAM is only looking OUTSIDE GOVT.

If you want to discuss “INSIDE GOVT”, my position stands. Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham is the spray paint.

 
Last edited: