Durham investigation (Update: Sussman acquitted) (9 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
    SaintForLife

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    7,313
    Reaction score
    3,404
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    It looks like the first shoe has dropped with the Durham investigation with the Clinesmith plea deal. Clinesmith wasn't a low level FBI employee involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

    He worked with Strzok to arrange sending an FBI agent into Trump-Flynn briefing, was on the Mueller team, he took part in the Papadopoulos interviews, and he participated in the FISA process.



    From the NYT article:
    20200814_153906.jpg

    www.nytimes.com

    Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Expected to Plead Guilty in Review of Russia Inquiry (Published 2020)

    Prosecutors did not reveal any evidence of the kind of broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials that the president has long alleged.
    www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

    I wonder who else knew about the lies?



     
    Newly published letter from Durham's office reveals that Sussmann failed to provide records to *his own law firm*. Concealed materials include incriminating text message to the FBI.

    Durham: "the defendant had "knowledge" that his electronic communications would incriminate him"
    20220418_173449.jpg

     
    Durham has granted immunity to "Researcher-2" - identified as David Dagon.

    Dagon raised concerns to Sussmann that the Trump data "was being unlawfully collected and used"
    20220418_173711.png

    20220418_173714.png

    On the Russian phones: Sussmann said the "presence and activity of a Russian made phone around President Trump" started in April 2016.

    It continued after Trump's "move to the White House."

    20220418_174054.png

    They targeted the Executive Office of the President after Trump was elected.

    CIA notes of the Sussmann meeting confirm this.

    They extracted and manipulated data from the Executive Office of the President during the transition.
    20220418_174222.png
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Durham has granted immunity to "Researcher-2" - identified as David Dagon.

    Dagon raised concerns to Sussmann that the Trump data "was being unlawfully collected and used"
    20220418_173711.png

    20220418_173714.png

    On the Russian phones: Sussmann said the "presence and activity of a Russian made phone around President Trump" started in April 2016.

    It continued after Trump's "move to the White House."

    20220418_174054.png

    They targeted the Executive Office of the President after Trump was elected.

    CIA notes of the Sussmann meeting confirm this.

    They extracted and manipulated data from the Executive Office of the President during the transition.
    20220418_174222.png
    Click to expand...
    I'm curious as to why Durham is willing to grant immunity to Dagon in order to "uncover otherwise-unavailable facts," that will help the prosecution....but he hasn't granted immunity to Joffe in order to "uncover otherwise-unavailable facts" that Joffe says are exculpatory. Is Durham looking for the truth, or not?
     
    FullMonte said:
    I'm curious as to why Durham is willing to grant immunity to Dagon in order to "uncover otherwise-unavailable facts," that will help the prosecution....but he hasn't granted immunity to Joffe in order to "uncover otherwise-unavailable facts" that Joffe says are exculpatory. Is Durham looking for the truth, or not?
    Click to expand...
    Joffe was allegedly involved in the scheme with Sussman. Why would Durham give Joffe immunity if he possibly faces charges?

    Joffe and others at Georgia Tech allegedly monitored Trump's internet traffic while he was President of the United States.
    20220418_211633.jpg

     
    It’s called exculpatory evidence. Durham gives away his undeniable bias by his inaction. He’s conducting an improper investigation.

    And your statement that Trump’s internet traffic was monitored is so misleading as to be false.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Joffe was allegedly involved in the scheme with Sussman. Why would Durham give Joffe immunity if he possibly faces charges?

    Joffe and others at Georgia Tech allegedly monitored Trump's internet traffic while he was President of the United States.
    20220418_211633.jpg

    Click to expand...
    So…let’s convict someone wrongfully because if we don’t, we can’t convict someone who was working with him…also wrongfully. Isn’t Sussman charged only with lying to the FBI when he said he wasn’t working for a client? If Joffe is potentially facing charges for what he did with Sussman, why has t Sussman been charged with more? Are we to think that Durham expects to find evidence against Sussman doing something else illegal that he hasn’t already uncovered?

    And..wasn’t it shown that the monitoring of the EOp occurred while Obama was president?
     
    FullMonte said:
    So…let’s convict someone wrongfully because if we don’t, we can’t convict someone who was working with him…also wrongfully.

    And..wasn’t it shown that the monitoring of the EOp occurred while Obama was president?
    Click to expand...
    Yes, I am pretty sure it was, and that it was done lawfully and properly. His statement is terribly misleading.
     
    MT15 said:
    It’s called exculpatory evidence. Durham gives away his undeniable bias by his inaction. He’s conducting an improper investigation.

    And your statement that Trump’s internet traffic was monitored is so misleading as to be false.
    Click to expand...
    What is preventing Joffe from testifying if he claims he can help Sussman?

    Yet again you throw out another vague statement without any specificity. Why was my statement about Trump's internet traffic being monitored misleading or false? It's impossible to respond when you are vague, but I think you do that on purpose so you can claim something isn't true without actually showing how or why something isn't true.
     
    FullMonte said:
    So…let’s convict someone wrongfully because if we don’t, we can’t convict someone who was working with him…also wrongfully. Isn’t Sussman charged only with lying to the FBI when he said he wasn’t working for a client? If Joffe is potentially facing charges for what he did with Sussman, why has t Sussman been charged with more? Are we to think that Durham expects to find evidence against Sussman doing something else illegal that he hasn’t already uncovered?

    And..wasn’t it shown that the monitoring of the EOp occurred while Obama was president?
    Click to expand...
    Pure speculation on my part, but Durham has spent a lot of time getting some communications that Sussman, GPS Fusion, Hillary, or whoever else claimed was protected by attorney client privilege. He has probably seen enough to lead him to believe Joffe is guilty of violating some laws and maybe Sussman for more than they lying to the FBI and needs to confirm that through the communications that he is asking the judge to review to see if it is legitimately covered by attorney client privilege.

    Also, Baker just recently turned over his person phone to Durham which is where this came from:

    The new filing by the special counsel, John H. Durham, says that the night before Mr. Sussmann’s meeting, he had texted the F.B.I. official stating that “I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the bureau.”
    www.google.com

    More Evidence Bolsters Durham’s Case Against Democratic-Linked Lawyer

    Separately, defense lawyers asked a judge to block the Trump-era special counsel from making the Steele dossier a focus of next month’s trial.
    www.google.com www.google.com

    I'm guessing that Durham has found more incriminating evidence on Baker's phone which has lead for more motions to admit additional evidence. Who knows for sure. We will find out more at trial.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    What is preventing Joffe from testifying if he claims he can help Sussman?

    Yet again you throw out another vague statement without any specificity. Why was my statement about Trump's internet traffic being monitored misleading or false? It's impossible to respond when you are vague, but I think you do that on purpose so you can claim something isn't true without actually showing how or why something isn't true.
    Click to expand...
    What you should know is this: I think this “investigation” is clearly being done backwards. Durham knows what he wants to find, and by god, he’s going to find it. Whether it takes him years and years to file 1-2 stupid cases that don’t prove what he wants them to prove. And he files on the eve of the statute of limitations running out.

    So, there was no “monitoring of internet activity” done in the way that people will assume when you use those words. The computer scientists were doing their jobs, not “spying” on Trump. Their data gathering was done legally and it was expected of them to do it. I read all about it back when dishonest people on the right starting mischaracterizing this whole situation. I don’t care enough to be more specific because I would have to go back and look it up again.

    Joffe has been threatened with being indicted himself. He will testify if granted immunity. It’s clear that Durham intends to manufacture indictments and Joffe is being smart about it. When someone is indicted, even if the indictment is garbage they will incur significant legal expenses. Anyone in Joffe’s position facing a prosecutor like Durham would do the same.
     
    MT15 said:
    What you should know is this: I think this “investigation” is clearly being done backwards. Durham knows what he wants to find, and by god, he’s going to find it. Whether it takes him years and years to file 1-2 stupid cases that don’t prove what he wants them to prove. And he files on the eve of the statute of limitations running out.

    So, there was no “monitoring of internet activity” done in the way that people will assume when you use those words. The computer scientists were doing their jobs, not “spying” on Trump. Their data gathering was done legally and it was expected of them to do it. I read all about it back when dishonest people on the right starting mischaracterizing this whole situation. I don’t care enough to be more specific because I would have to go back and look it up again.

    Joffe has been threatened with being indicted himself. He will testify if granted immunity. It’s clear that Durham intends to manufacture indictments and Joffe is being smart about it. When someone is indicted, even if the indictment is garbage they will incur significant legal expenses. Anyone in Joffe’s position facing a prosecutor like Durham would do the same.
    Click to expand...
    How did Manos and Dagon of Georgia Tech aquire the data about Trump in July of 2016 when their Georgia Tech's contract with DARPA didn't start until November 17,2016? This email from Gerogia Tech asks who they were working for at that point.
    20220426_170906.png

    Sussmann team suggests Durham has obtained information that DARPA contracts were abused in the effort to falsely establish a link between Trump and Putin.
    20220426_171515.jpg


    I'm not sure what this involves, but someone from DARPA is lying:

    www.washingtonexaminer.com

    Durham-related emails prompt DARPA to deny involvement in attributing 2016 DNC hack to Russia - Washington Examiner

    A Pentagon agency has denied any role in attributing the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee to Russia after an email indicated special counsel John Durham's team asked a computer expert who had researched Trump-Russia collusion claims about it. Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael...
    www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com

    margot4.22.a.jpg
     
    SFL: I will never ever care about this stuff like you do. Durham has been on this fishing expedition too long. If he had anything at all, it would be out by now. I’m not reading that shirt.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom