- Mar 27, 2014
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
McCarthy ignores of course that Sussman declares under oath in his response that the EOP data all preceded Trump. That's disappointing. He's supposed to be a serious former prosecutor. You'd think a declaration under oath by Sussman's team would get a mention, somewhere. It's a fact easily established at trial, and Durham could have easily addressed this claim in his next filing, but Durham left the time period deliberately vague, again.NYT is spinning, deflecting, and obfuscating - like you do. I know you won't read this, but some here will, at least those who want to know the truth. The Misleading Claim That Durham’s Reference to Trump White House Records Was Misleading
Again, NYT is spinning because they are complicit in spreading the Russia Hoax.
So we can either guess about when the data was collected because of Durham's deliberately and repeatedly vague references to EOP data, or we can go with the only declaration under oath about when that data was collected and that is in fact very specific about the relevant timeframe.
1 For example, although the Special Counsel implies that in Mr. Sussmann’s February 9, 2017 meeting, he provided Agency-2 with EOP data from after Mr. Trump took office, the Special Counsel is well aware that the data provided to Agency-2 pertained only to the period of time before Mr. Trump took office, when Barack Obama was President