Durham investigation (Update: Sussman acquitted) (14 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

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:

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

I wonder who else knew about the lies?

 

[SaintForLife]

LMAO @ the "Clint Dossier"...clever.

I have zero doubt that all of this coming from Durham will eventually lead to more damming evidence against trump.

The long time Clinton Operative Charles Dolan was the one who was feeding Danchenko who was feeding Steele.

The Hillary Clinton campaign was the original source of the discredited "Steele Dossier."

Why wouldn't we call it the Clinton Dossier?

 

[SaintForLife]

No, the Steele Dossier actually wasn’t the main reason for the investigations, no matter how many times you say it. It wasn’t important to the FISAs either.

Also, it is sorta funny that you now have renamed it the Clinton dossier, when it was actually prepared for the Washington Free Beacon. Talking points must be followed, lol.

Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

In an interview about the special counsel's report, Rep. John Ratcliffe said that what "started all of this" was "a fake, phony dossier." But a House Republican intelligence committee memo said it was information about a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser that sparked the FBI's...

www.factcheck.org

The Washington Beacon funded the intial opposition research, but Steele wasn't hired until after Trump was nominated & the Democrats took over the funding.





Without the Steele/Clinton Dossier there wouldn't have been any FISA warrants. How were you not aware of that by now?

 

[SaintForLife]

Trump’s first impeachment, IIRC, had nothing to do with anything about the Steele Dossier. Nobody except the press paid it any mind, and of course your guys, because they really need to deflect from the actual crimes committed.

I just posted that Comey & McCabe wanted to include the Steele/Clinton in the Intelligence Community’s Assessment eventhough they already knew at that time that it wasn't true. It still ended up in a different section. That was purposely done because then it gave the news media a reason to report on it.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[J-DONK]

The Dossier is a fabrication. There are a bunch of ties, and friendly overtures between the Trump admin/RNC, and Russia.

I don't even see how there could be a grand conspiracy. When that dossier was being put together, HRC still 100% thought she was going to be president. Obama didn't come public with anything until after the election. Are Republicans asserting that Clinton was planting stories to use as cover to investigate Trump after the election? What was the 4d chess move in all this?

I'll be honest this story is only interesting to me if Danchenko knows where the bodies are buried on some other Clinton scandals.

 

[JRad]

I don't even see how there could be a grand conspiracy.

I've yet to see something SFL doesn't think is a conspiracy.

 

[Bolo]

Durham is still a myth busters meme until he gets a big catch imo.

 

[SaintForLife]

I've yet to see something SFL doesn't think is a conspiracy.

Dude. You guys fell for the biggest conspiracy theory in US history and you are accusing others about falling for conspiracy’s? You might want to sit this one out.

 

[SaintForLife]

How ironic that the first time the habitual liar Schiff was challenged on his Russiagate lies ended up on The View. What does that say about the Corporate media that Schiff has NEVER been challenged on his Russiagate lies until now?

The fact that Schiff read the Clinton Dosier into the Congressional record and that Comey and McCabe included it in a briefing to Obama discredits the Democratic talking point that it was just a media story.

 

[SaintForLife]

The story that keeps on giving:





More dominoes falling into place:

 

[JRad]

Dude. You guys fell for the biggest conspiracy theory in US history and you are accusing others about falling for conspiracy’s? You might want to sit this one out.

You feel for the conspiracy that there was a conspiracy. But your opinions are fed to you by Twitter, so that's no real surprise.

 

[MT15]

Looks like that hasty charge brought by Durham might be just what I was told it was: spurious and a desperate attempt to come up with something, anything, after a two year investigation:

Defendant in Case Brought by Durham Says New Evidence Undercuts Charge (Published 2021)

Lawyers for Michael Sussmann, accused by the Trump-era special counsel of lying to the F.B.I., asked for a quick trial after receiving what they said was helpful material from prosecutors.

www.nytimes.com

“The newly disclosed evidence consists of records of two Justice Department interviews of the former F.B.I. official to whom Mr. Sussmann is accused of lying, each of which offers a different version of the key interaction than the version in the indictment. That official is the prosecution’s main witness.

The existence of the evidence, which Mr. Durham’s team provided to Mr. Sussmann’s team last week, “only underscores the baseless and unprecedented nature of this indictment and the importance of setting a prompt trial date so that Mr. Sussmann can vindicate himself as soon as possible,” the defense lawyers wrote.”

 

[SamAndreas]

Looks like that hasty charge brought by Durham might be just what I was told it was: spurious and a desperate attempt to come up with something, anything, after a two year investigation:

Defendant in Case Brought by Durham Says New Evidence Undercuts Charge (Published 2021)

Lawyers for Michael Sussmann, accused by the Trump-era special counsel of lying to the F.B.I., asked for a quick trial after receiving what they said was helpful material from prosecutors.

www.nytimes.com

“The newly disclosed evidence consists of records of two Justice Department interviews of the former F.B.I. official to whom Mr. Sussmann is accused of lying, each of which offers a different version of the key interaction than the version in the indictment. That official is the prosecution’s main witness.

The existence of the evidence, which Mr. Durham’s team provided to Mr. Sussmann’s team last week, “only underscores the baseless and unprecedented nature of this indictment and the importance of setting a prompt trial date so that Mr. Sussmann can vindicate himself as soon as possible,” the defense lawyers wrote.”

OK that does it, Durham is full of Bull. It's time for a pune:

 

[SaintForLife]

...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.”

...Mr. Sussmann’s legal team has denied that he told Mr. Baker he was not conveying the information on behalf of any client. They also insisted to the Justice Department before the indictment that Mr. Sussmann was not there at the direction or on behalf of the campaign. In court filings, they have acknowledged that Mr. Sussmann “arranged for this meeting on behalf of his client,” referring to Mr. Joffe.

 

[MT15]

Did you read the entire story? From your story:

“In the spring of 2019, the special counsel investigating the Trump campaign and Russia, Robert S. Mueller III, detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” but did not charge any Trump associate with conspiring with Russia. As Mr. Trump continued to claim that he was the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy, the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, assigned Mr. Durham to scour the Russia investigation for any wrongdoing.

But Mr. Durham has not developed any cases against high-level officials. Instead, he has brought false-statements charges involving two efforts by outsiders to hunt for signs of Trump-Russia links, both of which were thin and involved Perkins Coie in some way. He has used the indictments to insinuate that the Clinton campaign may have orchestrated the concoction of false smears against Mr. Trump, but without charging such a conspiracy.”

Also:

“Mr. Sussmann’s legal team has denied that he told Mr. Baker he was not conveying the information on behalf of any client. They also insisted to the Justice Department before the indictment that Mr. Sussmann was not there at the direction or on behalf of the campaign. In court filings, they have acknowledged that Mr. Sussmann “arranged for this meeting on behalf of his client,” referring to Mr. Joffe.

The defense for Mr. Sussmann therefore may turn in part on what it means to be somewhere on behalf of a client. In a separate filing on Monday night, the defense asked the judge, Christopher Cooper of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, to dismiss the case if Mr. Durham does not grant immunity to Mr. Joffe, so that the technology executive can testify about his interactions with Mr. Sussmann regarding the meeting.

In that filing, they said Mr. Joffe would offer “critical exculpatory testimony on behalf of Mr. Sussmann,” including that the two agreed that he should take the information to the F.B.I. “to help the government, not to benefit Mr. Joffe.” They also said that “contrary to the special counsel’s entire theory,” Mr. Joffe’s work with the data scientists was not connected to the campaign.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Joffe did not provide a comment. But a letter from Mr. Joffe’s lawyer included in the filings said that while Mr. Joffe “can provide exculpatory information concerning the allegations against” Mr. Sussmann, Mr. Joffe still faced the possible risk of indictment and would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights not to testify.”

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

We really need to combine the Hunter Biden threads so SFL has an easier time keeping up.

 

[SaintForLife]

Did you read the entire story? From your story:

“In the spring of 2019, the special counsel investigating the Trump campaign and Russia, Robert S. Mueller III, detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” but did not charge any Trump associate with conspiring with Russia. As Mr. Trump continued to claim that he was the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy, the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, assigned Mr. Durham to scour the Russia investigation for any wrongdoing.

But Mr. Durham has not developed any cases against high-level officials. Instead, he has brought false-statements charges involving two efforts by outsiders to hunt for signs of Trump-Russia links, both of which were thin and involved Perkins Coie in some way. He has used the indictments to insinuate that the Clinton campaign may have orchestrated the concoction of false smears against Mr. Trump, but without charging such a conspiracy.”

Also:

“Mr. Sussmann’s legal team has denied that he told Mr. Baker he was not conveying the information on behalf of any client. They also insisted to the Justice Department before the indictment that Mr. Sussmann was not there at the direction or on behalf of the campaign. In court filings, they have acknowledged that Mr. Sussmann “arranged for this meeting on behalf of his client,” referring to Mr. Joffe.

The defense for Mr. Sussmann therefore may turn in part on what it means to be somewhere on behalf of a client. In a separate filing on Monday night, the defense asked the judge, Christopher Cooper of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, to dismiss the case if Mr. Durham does not grant immunity to Mr. Joffe, so that the technology executive can testify about his interactions with Mr. Sussmann regarding the meeting.

In that filing, they said Mr. Joffe would offer “critical exculpatory testimony on behalf of Mr. Sussmann,” including that the two agreed that he should take the information to the F.B.I. “to help the government, not to benefit Mr. Joffe.” They also said that “contrary to the special counsel’s entire theory,” Mr. Joffe’s work with the data scientists was not connected to the campaign.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Joffe did not provide a comment. But a letter from Mr. Joffe’s lawyer included in the filings said that while Mr. Joffe “can provide exculpatory information concerning the allegations against” Mr. Sussmann, Mr. Joffe still faced the possible risk of indictment and would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights not to testify.”

I know you love the spin from the Democrat friendly NYT and Washington Post, but when they actually acknowledge something bad for the Democrats they will do their best to put the positive spin for Democrats.

Hillary is in the process of being exposed as creating the Russiagate BS which was laundered through Democratic friendly lawyers hoping that the attorney client privilege would hide their corrupt and illegal actions.

 

[MT15]

There is none so blind as those who will not see. And it’s far easier to fool a person than convince them they have been fooled. If you want to post a story - don’t blame me for reading the entire story and pointing out what it actually says. That’s just silly.

There‘s zero evidence that Sussman was representing the Clinton campaign when he talked to the FBI. Durham is being dishonest in his investigative filings. When the truth comes out, I doubt that Sussman is convicted, and he may have the indictment thrown out. We shall see.

One thing I think is rock solid, though, is that when it doesn’t turn out the way you want you and the folks you read on Twitter will say it’s because of some sort of vast conspiracy. Instead of looking critically at your assumptions, you will double down.