DURHAM INVESTIGATION HEATS UP

[element94]

Holy shit. No seriously. Holy shit.

Not only did that imbecile get Durham's name wrong (so much for his genius), is he suggesting that Sussman be executed?

Things must be really heating up for him and he knows he's in big trouble. His desperation is palpable.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Shredding documents = didn't Oliver North and Richard Secord partake in such activity? You know the Reagan/Bush illegal arms sales to the Iran Contra's. Prescott Bush sold arms to Hitler...... Fred Koch built a refinery for Stalin = all this doing business with the enemy all of which may have helped kill innocent men, women and children and a few US soldiers ?????????

You conveniently forgot "Fast & furious"

 

[jpn]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the FBI lead investigators with Flynn admit that they never thought he was guilty but they were told to exert pressure by threatening his family to coerce a guilty plea?

Yikes.

You're wrong.

 

[upsideguy]

Durham filed a motion on Feb. 11 focused on potential conflicts of interest related to the representation of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman, who has been charged with making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussman has pleaded not guilty.

Regardless of your opinion of Fox News Durham filed the motion. Two people have been charged with lying. The thing is ongoing. Don’t act like you’re not interested in the outcome. Maybe HRC will finally get what she deserves. LOCK HER UP.

The statute of limitations on substantially all of this is done. No one is getting locked up (other than for lying to the FBI).

Moreover, after three years, there is NO link between Clinton and any of this. Everything that has been discussed herein is innuendo and conjecture, not substance. There is no real legal boulevard to the Clinton campaign on any of this. It is fantasy.

What this does well document, however, is just how ill-informed and malleable FOX news viewers actually are. They are foaming at the mouth without even understanding the issue.

 

[Callen]

I think both sides are reading way too much into the indictment or the filing. It is what it is and rather stand alone in my view. None of us has a clue what more or less Durham has. My sense is he will issue a critical report about the lack of controls around the various d intelligence agencies, his particular area of expertise, and that's about it.

 

[post]

Durham is credible. But I'm reminded of a question that has been asked by Sundance at The Conservative Treehouse:

How is John Durham going to reveal everything that is possible about the deep state Trump targeting operation, and simultaneously handle the involvement of Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and the Special Counsel team who were specifically appointed to cover it up?​

Durham Court Filing Identifies Clinton Tech Ally with Govt Provided Access to Spy on Executive Office of President Trump - The Last Refuge

CTH begins every outline of the ongoing Durham investigation with the following disclaimer: How is John Durham going to reveal everything that is possible about the deep state Trump targeting operation, and simultaneously handle the involvement of Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and the...

theconservativetreehouse.com

Mark Bradman known as Sundance the Publix grocery manager with a low end conservative blog is your source? Wow!

 

[post]

The statute of limitations on substantially all of this is done. No one is getting locked up (other than for lying to the FBI).

Moreover, after three years, there is NO link between Clinton and any of this. Everything that has been discussed herein is innuendo and conjecture, not substance. There is no real legal boulevard to the Clinton campaign on any of this. It is fantasy.

What this does well document, however, is just how ill-informed and malleable FOX news viewers actually are. They are foaming at the mouth without even understanding the issue.

Indict First Interview Later: Durham's Belated Efforts to Substantiate His Claims that Michael Sussmann Coordinated with Hillary - emptywheel

It wasn't until two months after Durham had accused Michael Sussmann of coordinating his Alfa Bank work with Hillary's campaign before he first interviewed anyone from the campaign.

www.emptywheel.net

February 16, 2022

"...On October 20, over a month after indicting Sussmann, Durham was still refusing to name any Clinton Campaign personnel with whom Sussmann had coordinated directly.

That’s why this detail in Sussmann’s response to Durham’s conflict motion matters so much:

[T]he Special Counsel has alleged that Mr. Sussmann met with the FBI on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, but it was not until November 2021—two months after Mr. Sussmann was indicted—that the Special Counsel bothered to interview any individual who worked full-time for that Campaign to determine if that allegation was true.

When Durham refused to answer Sussmann’s requests, in September and October, to tell him with whom on the Clinton campaign he had been coordinating, Durham still had never interviewed a single Clinton staffer. He first did so in November.

The discovery update submitted on January 25 reveals that that single Clinton staffer remained the sole Clinton staffer Durham had interviewed to that date.

Yesterday, Durham added a securities fraud prosecutor to his team, suggesting he’s going to try to change the theory of his case (I suspect, by suggesting Sussmann’s billing practices show he was trying to hide Rodney Joffe’s role).

But as I’ll lay out, there’s tons of instances of this, where Durham demonstrably failed to do basic investigative work before charging Sussmann five years after a claimed lie."

 

[jnug]

Durham has lost all credibility if he ever had any.

 

[reflechissez]

I think both sides are reading way too much into the indictment or the filing. It is what it is and rather stand alone in my view. None of us has a clue what more or less Durham has. My sense is he will issue a critical report about the lack of controls around the various d intelligence agencies, his particular area of expertise, and that's about it.

Um...no.

 

[Callen]

Um...no

Let me clarify.....
I think the right wrongly thinks is way bigger than it is and I think the left wrongly thinks this is all Durham has.

 

[reflechissez]

Let me clarify.....
I think the right wrongly thinks is way bigger than it is and I think the left wrongly thinks this is all Durham has.

Meh. Seems the good stuff would have been reported by now.

 

[Airyaman]

Let me clarify.....
I think the right wrongly thinks is way bigger than it is and I think the left wrongly thinks this is all Durham has.

He certainly hasn't indicted anyone else. And the last one was very weak.

 

[upsideguy]

Let me clarify.....
I think the right wrongly thinks is way bigger than it is and I think the left wrongly thinks this is all Durham has.

I would agree with that statement. At this point, however, after three years on the job, it does not appear the Durham has much of anything ... and we know the clock is running out on just about anything he could charge, if he actually had something. Three years on the job with little to show for it gets you booted to the street in real life.

What Fox News has been promoting is pretty much vapor. Its viewers are nonetheless are running around as if they won the political Super Bowl (see the countless threads on this board on this subject. I have yet to see a substantive post). The whole thing appears to be a big farce.

People are complaining that the mainstream media is ignoring this, yet I have yet to have anyone lay out any substance to this. I think that is because Fox viewers don't even understand it. I think this thread should be renamed "Durham Investigation Flames Out", but that would over dramatize it as it would imply it had flames in the first place.

 

[Callen]

He certainly hasn't indicted anyone else.

Yes, I know that. I personally think, as mentioned in a different post, that his findings will be around failures, abuses and other issues related to how the various intelligence agencies handled this. It will likely be damning and attack the overall integrity in the investigations but I don't think he will find much in the way of illegal conduct. Nevertheless the right will spin it as some sort of vindication of Trump......which it will not be. It will also not deliver the evidence of criminal behaviour on the part of the Obama Administration or Clinton.

 

[Mycroft]

That's some grade A batshit crazy you got there.

Please explain.

 

[Mycroft]

One of the problems conservatives have in following this story (or any story, for that matter) is that they are routinely lied to. For example:

Fox News Headlines, three days ago:

Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds​

Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.​

However, Mr. Durham’s filing never used the word “infiltrate.” And it never claimed that Mr. Joffe’s company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Most important, contrary to the reporting, the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. According to lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped develop the Yota analysis, the data — so-called DNS logs, which are records of when computers or smartphones have prepared to communicate with servers over the internet — came from Barack Obama’s presidency.

You'd think they'd get tired of being misled around by their noses.

When the Clinton Campaign pays someone to pay someone else to do some illegal stuff...guess what...it's the Clinton Campaign who is doing the paying.

Durham doesn't have to use "infiltrate" or "spy" or anything else. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...then you can be sure it's a duck. And the fact is, the Clinton Campaign paid for spying on Trump. (And they took the information they found from that spying and tried to get the FBI to use it to investigate Trump.

It's bad enough that Obama hired people to figure out how to spy on the White House, but it's worse that Hillary got them to spy on Trump and the Trump White House.

 

[post]

-snip-
However, Mr. Durham’s filing never used the word “infiltrate.” And it never claimed that Mr. Joffe’s company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Most important, contrary to the reporting, the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era. According to lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped develop the Yota analysis, the data — so-called DNS logs, which are records of when computers or smartphones have prepared to communicate with servers over the internet — came from Barack Obama’s presidency.

You'd think they'd get tired of being misled around by their noses.

When the Clinton Campaign pays someone to pay someone else to do some illegal stuff...guess what...it's the Clinton Campaign who is doing the paying.

Durham doesn't have to use "infiltrate" or "spy" or anything else. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...then you can be sure it's a duck. And the fact is, the Clinton Campaign paid for spying on Trump. (And they took the information they found from that spying and tried to get the FBI to use it to investigate Trump.

It's bad enough that Obama hired people to figure out how to spy on the White House, but it's worse that Hillary got them to spy on Trump and the Trump White House.

You do not seem to be responding with any linked supported or any other facts, at all, to the post you are quoting, so why did you do it, considering you made no attempt to rebut it?

Example of posting a linked cite as an actual facts supported rebuttal,

Donald Trump Suggested Michael Sussmann Should Be Killed because Rodney Joffe "Spied" on Barack Obama - emptywheel

John Durham's misleading claims in an unrelated motion led Donald Trump to suggest Michael Sussmann should be killed because Rodney Joffe "spied" (by monitoring networks for hacks) on Barack Obama.

www.emptywheel.net

February 15, 2022

 

[US&THEM]

Please explain.

Every one of your posts

 

[jpn]

When the Clinton Campaign pays someone to pay someone else to do some illegal stuff...guess what...it's the Clinton Campaign who is doing the paying.

Is that what they did? No. It is not.

 

[Mycroft]

You do not seem to be responding with any linked supported or any other facts, at all, to the post you are quoting, so why did you do it, considering you made no attempt to rebut it?

Example of posting a linked cite as an actual facts supported rebuttal,

Donald Trump Suggested Michael Sussmann Should Be Killed because Rodney Joffe "Spied" on Barack Obama - emptywheel

John Durham's misleading claims in an unrelated motion led Donald Trump to suggest Michael Sussmann should be killed because Rodney Joffe "spied" (by monitoring networks for hacks) on Barack Obama.

www.emptywheel.net

February 15, 2022

I don't need a link to rebut a post, just knowledge, reason and logic.

Does that chap your ass? I don't care.

 

[Mycroft]

Every one of your posts

???

You explain nothing.

You are dismissed.

 

[soap box]

Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds

Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to create fake information to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham says.

www.foxnews.com

Is Durham as credible as Robert Mueller? Or can somebody come up with another excuse for HRC?

I'm realizing there is a problem in the story about the time that events occurred.

“Although the special counsel implies that in Mr. Sussmann’s February 9, 2017 meeting, he provided [the CIA] with EOP data from after Mr. Trump took office, the special counsel is well aware that the data provided to [the CIA] pertained only to the period of time before Mr. Trump took office, when Barack Obama was President,” Sussmann’s legal team said in its filing. “Further — and contrary to the special counsel’s alleged theory that Mr. Sussmann was acting in concert with the Clinton campaign — the motion conveniently overlooks the fact that Mr. Sussmann’s meeting with [the CIA] happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the Clinton campaign had effectively ceased to exist.”

But there are other aspects of this. Obviously , the narrative is far too complicated for average Americans to care. It will be reduced to a FOX bumper sticker slogan that doesn't explain or refute anything more than 'lock her up'.

The other extension of this is that the flimsy accusations and weak assertions are more likely to be a deflection from the legal trouble trump has earned. This is a massive whataboutism. trump supporters want and need something to offset the concern that trump's support is waning and his legal liabilities are waxing .

 

[Mycroft]

Is that what they did? No. It is not.

That's what Durham says they did.



But...like the media, you are running away from Durham.

 

[soap box]

I'm realizing there is a problem in the story about the time that events occurred.

“Although the special counsel implies that in Mr. Sussmann’s February 9, 2017 meeting, he provided [the CIA] with EOP data from after Mr. Trump took office, the special counsel is well aware that the data provided to [the CIA] pertained only to the period of time before Mr. Trump took office, when Barack Obama was President,” Sussmann’s legal team said in its filing. “Further — and contrary to the special counsel’s alleged theory that Mr. Sussmann was acting in concert with the Clinton campaign — the motion conveniently overlooks the fact that Mr. Sussmann’s meeting with [the CIA] happened well after the 2016 presidential election, at a time when the Clinton campaign had effectively ceased to exist.”

But there are other aspects of this. Obviously , the narrative is far too complicated for average Americans to care. It will be reduced to a FOX bumper sticker slogan that doesn't explain or refute anything more than 'lock her up'.

The other extension of this is that the flimsy accusations and weak assertions are more likely to be a deflection from the legal trouble trump has earned. This is a massive whataboutism. trump supporters want and need something to offset the concern that trump's support is waning and his legal liabilities are waxing .

That quote is from the filing from Sussmann's legal team.

 

[justoneman]

the shit is going to go down. I am glad you lefties are in such denial. we don't have a corrupt lefty shill doing the investigation like Mueller.

3. Marc Elias Called Before the Grand Jury​

Another significant revelation from yesterday’s court filing concerned Sussmann’s Perkins Coie colleague, Marc Elias, the top lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Elias, identified in the Sussmann indictment and the government’s discovery update as “Campaign Lawyer-1,” provided sworn grand jury testimony, according to the special counsel’s office. That revelation proves significant given that Elias served as an attorney for the Clinton campaign and thus attorney-client privilege would generally protect communications related to the legal work performed.

However, as the attorney known by the moniker Techno Fog noted, “the fact that Marc Elias, the DNC/Clinton lawyer, was before a grand jury. . . indicates Durham has used the ‘crime-fraud exception’ to compel disclosure of information and to elicit testimony.”

The crime-fraud exception provides that communications are not protected by attorney-client privilege if a client seeks advice from an attorney to plan or commit a crime. If Durham did successfully use the crime-fraud exception to question Elias or force the production of documents, that would be a huge development, especially given Elias’s role in hiring Fusion GPS, which hired Steele.

But there’s much more than Marc.

6 New Revelations From The John Durham Spygate Probe

Michael Sussmann represents only the third individual charged as a result of Special Counsel John Durham’s probe.

thefederalist.com