Discussion:
Is Durham still alive?
Add Reply
ScottW
2021-09-16 05:06:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Apparently the answer is yes.

and he might indict a Clinton attorney. At first I thought...another lame indictment.
But then I thought about Tom Cruise in The Firm. They can't do shit without their lawyers.
It's still lame....even if Jack Reacher was in it.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/09/15/john-durham-reportedly-preparing-a-surprise-indictment-n443671

ScottW
ScottW
2021-09-16 23:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Apparently the answer is yes.
and he might indict a Clinton attorney. At first I thought...another lame indictment.
But then I thought about Tom Cruise in The Firm. They can't do shit without their lawyers.
It's still lame....even if Jack Reacher was in it.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/09/15/john-durham-reportedly-preparing-a-surprise-indictment-n443671
ScottW
The indictment has been issued.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/attorney-linked-to-clinton-campaign-indicted-in-durham-probe/

Let's hope for more to follow.

ScottW
Art Sackman
2021-09-17 03:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by ScottW
Apparently the answer is yes.
and he might indict a Clinton attorney. At first I thought...another lame indictment.
But then I thought about Tom Cruise in The Firm. They can't do shit without their lawyers.
It's still lame....even if Jack Reacher was in it.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/09/15/john-durham-reportedly-preparing-a-surprise-indictment-n443671
ScottW
The indictment has been issued.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/attorney-linked-to-clinton-campaign-indicted-in-durham-probe/
Let's hope for more to follow.
ScottW
a nobody on a process crime
sounds familiar?
ScottW
2021-09-17 04:46:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Art Sackman
Post by ScottW
Post by ScottW
Apparently the answer is yes.
and he might indict a Clinton attorney. At first I thought...another lame indictment.
But then I thought about Tom Cruise in The Firm. They can't do shit without their lawyers.
It's still lame....even if Jack Reacher was in it.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/09/15/john-durham-reportedly-preparing-a-surprise-indictment-n443671
ScottW
The indictment has been issued.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/attorney-linked-to-clinton-campaign-indicted-in-durham-probe/
Let's hope for more to follow.
ScottW
a nobody on a process crime
sounds familiar?
Could be squeezing him to get to Hillary....but that's tough.
People usually want to live.

Heard a weird one on Hannity. Gregg Jarrett said when Brennan first got word of the Steele dossier being shopped to the FBI, he brought a criminal referal to DoJ as he knew that they (the shoppers) knew it was false. Comey buried it.

ScottW
ScottW
2021-09-17 05:04:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Art Sackman
Post by ScottW
Post by ScottW
Apparently the answer is yes.
and he might indict a Clinton attorney. At first I thought...another lame indictment.
But then I thought about Tom Cruise in The Firm. They can't do shit without their lawyers.
It's still lame....even if Jack Reacher was in it.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/09/15/john-durham-reportedly-preparing-a-surprise-indictment-n443671
ScottW
The indictment has been issued.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/attorney-linked-to-clinton-campaign-indicted-in-durham-probe/
Let's hope for more to follow.
ScottW
a nobody on a process crime
sounds familiar?
Well....he's not really a nobody.
He's the link between the Clinton campaign and Steele

https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/15/a-glaring-hole-in-the-alfa-bank-trump-server-story-could-unravel-the-russia-hoax/

"Durham’s grand jury, however, only must establish probable cause for an indictment of a particular crime. It is reportedly considering if false information about a Trump backchannel to Putin may have been knowingly passed to the U.S. government. If it finds that Michael Sussmann or Marc Elias knowingly violated the law on behalf of the Clinton campaign or the DNC, then federal investigators can pursue breaking that attorney-client privilege."

This may come together yet.

Remember Steele has already admitted in British court that he was working for Hillary. Forcing Sussman to testify to that would really seal the deal.

ScottW
ScottW
2021-09-17 05:12:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here's some more from NYP

https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/attorney-linked-to-clinton-campaign-indicted-in-durham-probe/

Sussmann is accused of a single count of making a false statement to federal authorities on Sept. 19, 2016. The indictment was returned just three days short of the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.

Hmmm....at least they didn't let it die under SoL.

During their conversation, Sussmann allegedly told Baker that “he was not acting on behalf of any client, which led the FBI General Counsel to understand that Sussmann was conveying the allegations as a good citizen and not as an advocate”.

“In fact …” the indictment states, “in assembling and conveying these allegations, Sussmann acted on behalf of specific clients,” including the Clinton campaign.

Michael SussmannMichael Sussmann is accused of making a false statement to federal officials.
Michael Sussmann is accused of making a false statement to federal officials.
Perkins Coie
Sussmann, the indictment says, had been retained by the Democratic National Committee in April 2016 to represent it after its email servers were hacked by groups affiliated with the Russian government. “In or around the same period,” the document says, “Sussmann was also advising the Clinton campaign in connection with cybersecurity issues.”

The indictment also claims that Sussmann had “coordinated and communicated” about the Alfa-Bank allegations “during telephone calls and meetings” with an unidentified tech executive who had passed him the purported server data in the summer of 2016 and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias — then a Perkins Coie partner.

Those calls and meetings, the document alleges, were billed by Sussmann to the Clinton campaign.


That's it....back to The Firm. Busted the lawyers bills!

ScottW
Art Sackman
2021-09-17 06:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Here's some more from NYP
https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/attorney-linked-to-clinton-campaign-indicted-in-durham-probe/
Sussmann is accused of a single count of making a false statement to federal authorities on Sept. 19, 2016. The indictment was returned just three days short of the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.
Hmmm....at least they didn't let it die under SoL.
more reason to suspect its a thin single cheeseburger from the dollar menu
ScottW
2021-09-17 16:06:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Art Sackman
Post by ScottW
Here's some more from NYP
https://nypost.com/2021/09/16/attorney-linked-to-clinton-campaign-indicted-in-durham-probe/
Sussmann is accused of a single count of making a false statement to federal authorities on Sept. 19, 2016. The indictment was returned just three days short of the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.
Hmmm....at least they didn't let it die under SoL.
more reason to suspect its a thin single cheeseburger from the dollar menu
We shall see. That 5 year limit is going to be coming fast for a whole bunch of malfeasance over the next 6 months.

ScottW
ScottW
2021-09-17 22:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
More details revealed everyday.

"In truth, and in fact, and as Sussmann well knew, Sussmann had acted on behalf of and in coordination with two specific clients of the law firm: tech executive 1 and the Clinton campaign in assembling and conveying these allegations," the grand jury indictment charged.

"Sussman's false statement to the FBI general counsel was material to that investigation because among other reasons it was relevant to the FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations was providing them as an ordinary citizen merely passing along information or whether he was instead doing so as a paid advocate for clients with a political or business agenda."

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-durham-indictment-exposes-second-leg-hillary

If they get indictment of Sussmann, I'm pretty sure indictments of the people who paid him to do it will follow.

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-17 23:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
More details revealed everyday.
"In truth, and in fact, and as Sussmann well knew, Sussmann had acted
on behalf of and in coordination with two specific clients of the law
firm: tech executive 1 and the Clinton campaign in assembling and
conveying these allegations," the grand jury indictment charged.
"Sussman's false statement to the FBI general counsel was material to
that investigation because among other reasons it was relevant to the
FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations was providing them as
an ordinary citizen merely passing along information or whether he
was instead doing so as a paid advocate for clients with a political
or business agenda."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-durham-indictment-exposes-second-leg-hillary
If they get indictment of Sussmann, I'm pretty sure indictments of
the people who paid him to do it will follow.
No, because they didn't make any false statements. Also, the FBI knew
who he was so his identity wasn't material to the case despite what is
alleged, shown on Page 20 of the indictment where the Assistant Director
identifies him thus: Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.

The material "damage" could have been remedied by two minutes of googling.
ScottW
2021-09-18 06:05:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
More details revealed everyday.
"In truth, and in fact, and as Sussmann well knew, Sussmann had acted
on behalf of and in coordination with two specific clients of the law
firm: tech executive 1 and the Clinton campaign in assembling and
conveying these allegations," the grand jury indictment charged.
"Sussman's false statement to the FBI general counsel was material to
that investigation because among other reasons it was relevant to the
FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations was providing them as
an ordinary citizen merely passing along information or whether he
was instead doing so as a paid advocate for clients with a political
or business agenda."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-durham-indictment-exposes-second-leg-hillary
If they get indictment of Sussmann, I'm pretty sure indictments of
the people who paid him to do it will follow.
No, because they didn't make any false statements.
You think that's the only crime here? LoL.
Post by MiNe109
Also, the FBI knew
who he was so his identity wasn't material to the case despite what is
alleged, shown on Page 20 of the indictment where the Assistant Director
identifies him thus: Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.
The material "damage" could have been remedied by two minutes of googling.
Duh...it's not like they didn't ask him. You think the FBI says it's ok to lie to them if they don't believe you?
Go ahead and try it.

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-18 15:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
More details revealed everyday.
No. That's from the indictment. It just took you longer to read it.
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
"In truth, and in fact, and as Sussmann well knew, Sussmann had
acted on behalf of and in coordination with two specific clients
of the law firm: tech executive 1 and the Clinton campaign in
assembling and conveying these allegations," the grand jury
indictment charged.
"Sussman's false statement to the FBI general counsel was
material to that investigation because among other reasons it
was relevant to the FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations
was providing them as an ordinary citizen merely passing along
information or whether he was instead doing so as a paid
advocate for clients with a political or business agenda."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-durham-indictment-exposes-second-leg-hillary
If they get indictment of Sussmann, I'm pretty sure indictments
of the people who paid him to do it will follow.
No, because they didn't make any false statements.
You think that's the only crime here? LoL.
It's the only one in the indictment.
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Also, the FBI knew who he was so his identity wasn't material to
the case despite what is alleged, shown on Page 20 of the
Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.
The material "damage" could have been remedied by two minutes of googling.
Duh...it's not like they didn't ask him. You think the FBI says
it's ok to lie to them if they don't believe you? Go ahead and try
it.
If the FBI says not answering causes material damage when they know the
answer already, they're lying.

And the evidence of the false statement is "contemporaneous handwritten
notes" made by the FBI Counterintelligence Assistant Director, who was
not at the meeting, of a conversation with an FBI General Counsel who
was. This is indirect at best, inadmissible hearsay at worst.
ScottW
2021-09-18 16:21:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
More details revealed everyday.
No. That's from the indictment. It just took you longer to read it.
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
"In truth, and in fact, and as Sussmann well knew, Sussmann had
acted on behalf of and in coordination with two specific clients
of the law firm: tech executive 1 and the Clinton campaign in
assembling and conveying these allegations," the grand jury
indictment charged.
"Sussman's false statement to the FBI general counsel was
material to that investigation because among other reasons it
was relevant to the FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations
was providing them as an ordinary citizen merely passing along
information or whether he was instead doing so as a paid
advocate for clients with a political or business agenda."
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/new-durham-indictment-exposes-second-leg-hillary
If they get indictment of Sussmann, I'm pretty sure indictments
of the people who paid him to do it will follow.
No, because they didn't make any false statements.
You think that's the only crime here? LoL.
It's the only one in the indictment.
That's why I expect more indictments.
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Also, the FBI knew who he was so his identity wasn't material to
the case despite what is alleged, shown on Page 20 of the
Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.
The material "damage" could have been remedied by two minutes of googling.
Duh...it's not like they didn't ask him. You think the FBI says
it's ok to lie to them if they don't believe you? Go ahead and try
it.
If the FBI says not answering causes material damage when they know the
answer already, they're lying.
And the evidence of the false statement is "contemporaneous handwritten
notes" made by the FBI Counterintelligence Assistant Director, who was
not at the meeting, of a conversation with an FBI General Counsel who
was. This is indirect at best, inadmissible hearsay at worst.
What makes you think the General Counsel can't testify or was the only one
at the meeting?

A more general question.....how far can you bury your head to escape reality?

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-18 18:23:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
And the evidence of the false statement is "contemporaneous
handwritten notes" made by the FBI Counterintelligence Assistant
Director, who was not at the meeting, of a conversation with an FBI
General Counsel who was. This is indirect at best, inadmissible
hearsay at worst.
What makes you think the General Counsel can't testify or was the
only one at the meeting?
Not saying he can't. Saying he didn't.
ScottW
2021-09-19 04:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
And the evidence of the false statement is "contemporaneous
handwritten notes" made by the FBI Counterintelligence Assistant
Director, who was not at the meeting, of a conversation with an FBI
General Counsel who was. This is indirect at best, inadmissible
hearsay at worst.
What makes you think the General Counsel can't testify or was the
only one at the meeting?
Not saying he can't. Saying he didn't.
Wasn't necessary for the grand jury. They issued the indictment.
Aren't you looking forward to a glorious trial or would you prefer
an ass saving plea bargain that sends Hillary up the river?

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-19 14:31:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
And the evidence of the false statement is "contemporaneous
handwritten notes" made by the FBI Counterintelligence Assistant
Director, who was not at the meeting, of a conversation with an FBI
General Counsel who was. This is indirect at best, inadmissible
hearsay at worst.
What makes you think the General Counsel can't testify or was the
only one at the meeting?
Not saying he can't. Saying he didn't.
Wasn't necessary for the grand jury. They issued the indictment.
Aren't you looking forward to a glorious trial or would you prefer
an ass saving plea bargain that sends Hillary up the river?
Not going to happen.
ScottW
2021-09-19 16:46:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
And the evidence of the false statement is "contemporaneous
handwritten notes" made by the FBI Counterintelligence Assistant
Director, who was not at the meeting, of a conversation with an FBI
General Counsel who was. This is indirect at best, inadmissible
hearsay at worst.
What makes you think the General Counsel can't testify or was the
only one at the meeting?
Not saying he can't. Saying he didn't.
Wasn't necessary for the grand jury. They issued the indictment.
Aren't you looking forward to a glorious trial or would you prefer
an ass saving plea bargain that sends Hillary up the river?
Not going to happen.
Biden needs a win everyone can support.

ScottW

Loading...