Durham is juggling live hand grenades in this indictment and the last one.
He wants to win convictions on narrow interpretations of contradictory evidence to try to prop up a fraudulent narrative that will fall apart under scrutiny.
There is no longer any doubt that Trump and Manafort and others were criminally conspiring with Russian agents and the Russian government.
The mystery is why they aren’t being prosecuted.

Durham is conspiring with Putin. Durham is Trump's puppet. It's all about Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump . . .

Everything comes back to Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump . . .

what are the chances Durham next nothing burgers conventely show up before the mid terms :huh:

timing is everything....

The defense team for a cybersecurity lawyer who was indicted in September by a Trump-era special counsel asked a judge on Monday to set a trial date sooner than the prosecutor wants — while disclosing evidence recently turned over to them that appears to contradict the charge.

The materials could make it harder for the special counsel, John H. Durham, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cybersecurity lawyer, Michael Sussmann, is guilty of the charge against him: making a false statement to the F.B.I. during a September 2016 meeting about possible links between Donald J. Trump and Russia.

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.

While Mr. Durham wants to wait until July 25 to start the trial, they said, the defense team urged the judge to set a start date of May 2.

John Durham pushed back on Michael Sussmann’s claims:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ims/ar-AARC3Hd

Adventures in Cut-and-Paste: John Durham says, “no specific client” is the same as, "not doing this for any client"

John Durham’s team has responded to Michael Sussmann’s request for a May trial date with a bunch of mostly nonsense.

AUSA Andrew DeFilippis does the following:

Blows off Susssmann’s observation that Durham promises to be ready for Igor Danchenko’s EDVA trial, which will involve far more complex classification issues, in April, even while saying classified discovery is what requires a later trial date in this case.
Does not deny Durham only belatedly provided Brady, while accusing Sussmann of “cherry-picking excerpts,” when Durham is the one providing excerpts.
Complains that Sussmann doesn’t note “law enforcement reports of Mr. Baker’s subsequent three interviews with the Special Counsel’s Office in which he affirmed and then re-affirmed his now-clear recollection of the defendant’s false statement,” which seems to suggest that like the one fragment already provided (which shows at least one sign of irregularity), Durham is claiming interview reports are more accurate than transcripts.
Complains that Sussmann didn’t mention a second potentially inadmissible hearsay document, written by someone else in the General Counsel’s office.
Accuses Sussmann of neglecting to mention a CIA report about a different meeting that Sussmann already discussed at length (indeed, Durham was the one withholding information on it when last it came up) — and which Durham admitted was based off notes that have been destroyed.
Mentions “three grand jury transcripts” but doesn’t describe any of them as Baker’s.
Invokes “serious national security equities” in a case that criminalizes reporting a cybersecurity concern.
To look on Durham’s case in the best light: After Baker reviewed notes that others took, he came to remember that Sussmann affirmatively said he was not representing a client at the meeting (though Durham doesn’t claim to have the specific words Sussmann said, nor does he quote any in his discussion of the three other 302s).

And Durham does not deny that he’s slow-walking Brady material.

But I want to look at DeFillippis’ cut-and-paste again. In the response to Sussmann, DeFillippis suggests that this second hearsay document from someone in his office matches the first, Bill Priestap’s notes taken immediately after the meeting.

Those notes, like the notes cited in the Indictment taken by an FBI Assistant Director, reflect that the defendant told Baker he had “no specific client.” [my emphasis]

Except that’s not what the indictment says Priestap’s notes say. Those say:

Michael Sussman[n] — Atty: [Perkins Coie] — said not doing this for any client

Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.
“Not doing this for any client,” and “no specific client,” are undoubtedly close, but they are not the same thing, particularly given the great stake Durham and others have placed on whether Sussmann believed he was doing something important for cyber security, particularly given that neither mentions billing or representing. The differences suggest that even in these near-contemporaneous records taken by professional note-takers of what Baker said, either he himself was not consistent in the language he used to relay what happened, or the meaning his interlocutors took from it was not. Probably that’s because none of them accorded it the great import that Durham has, in part because they were all trying hard to deal with a very real cyberattack by Russia.

And remember there still are unanswered questions about the Alfa Bank investigation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As usual, Pete has it all figured out.

As soon as Trump said “I have no deals in Russia” the Russians knew they had him.
They knew and had the proof that he was making deals in Russia with Putin’s people and sanctioned banks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure he'll be behind bars quite soon....

like when you said Juicy Smulier was exonerated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

"Of course he's been exonerated now"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124

that’s pete for you, always wrong, yet never in doubt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny watching the Durham sinking life boat with his fans clinging to its sides still hoping he’ll find the missing part to the bilge pump and save them from being gullible again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what are the chances Durham's next nothing burgers conveniently show up before the mid terms? :as:

That’s the plan, isn’t it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Collusion?
https://nypost.com/2022/02/13/hillar...a-connections/

Criminals should be held accountable
Isn’t that what is said right here on this forum?
I’m amazed how people can put her on a pedestal
Makes me wonder who will end up dead by suicide soon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No collusion (Though I heard that’s not a crime) just amplification of a false story by right wing media

Various reports on revelations by Special Counsel Durham contain egregious errors. First and foremost, the new filing by Durham never says the Clinton campaign or its lawyers paid a tech company for anything.
Durham never said the tech executive cited in the filing “infiltrated” any Trump or White House server. That was taken from a quote of a former Congressional aide working for Devin Nunes’s committee.
The Clinton campaign obviously didn’t exist when Trump became president and there is no mention in the Durham filing that the Clinton campaign was involved in anything having to do with White House servers.
In fact, the filing says the tech firm only had access to White House servers and data because it was asked by the Trump White House to provide services.
The tech firm and its executive have never been accused of crimes and have not been charged. The executive works to uncover cybercrimes. Michael Sussman was the attorney for the tech executive mentioned in the filing. Sussman took information to both the FBI and CIA.
The filing says the Clinton campaign hired a “investigative firm” known for years to be Fusion GPS. It is not a tech company. It did opposition research. The filing does not reveal to what extent Fusion GPS was aware of the tech company’s data.
Cybersecurity experts concerned about Russians hacking the Democratic National Committee’s server say they looked for possible Russian hacks to Trump’s servers. This has been public knowledge since 2016.
Many of the details of how cybersecurity experts searched for Russian ties to Trump servers were told by the experts themselves in this 2018 article by Dexter Filkins of NewYorker.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...trump-campaign
The story is not new. Most of it was revealed in the recent indictment of Michael Sussman, a Clinton campaign lawyer charged with lying to the FBI. Durham alleges Sussman went to the FBI on Clinton’s behalf without revealing it. Sussman maintains his innocence.
News organizations such as the New York Times did stories about the Durham revelations when Sussman was indicted.
Fox News on-air personalities compound the errors by spinning its own inaccurate story beyond recognition
Here’s the document filed by Durham. USA v Sussmann Government’s Motion to… on Scribd:
https://www.scribd.com/document/5584...TS-OF-INTEREST
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary INC for Prison late 2022

this will be fun pete...who do you think will end up in prison first...hillary or trump?

"A surprisingly large share of Democrats wants to see Hillary Clinton investigated over her possible role in manufacturing dirt to try to tie Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a new poll shows.

The survey, conducted by TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics in New Jersey last month, polled 1,308 Americans about the mushrooming investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into the FBI’s probe of Trump’s alleged links to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Nearly three out of four of those polled who are following the story said they think it’s important prosecutors investigate Clinton for her role in the Russiagate scandal along with her top campaign advisers.

That includes two-thirds — or 66 percent — of the Democrats polled."

took Durham 2 years to get an indictment against a clinton lawyer for lying to the fbi. that was as exciting as taking your sister to the prom.

curious to see what comes out. for sure, Trump
was right when he said his campaign was being spied on, and how the media attacked him as paranoid for saying that.

I’m sure they’ll all apologize, if they haven’t already.

I’m confused, Scott. Is it wrong or is it not wrong, to try to overturn a legitimate election result? Is it ok when the loser and the media conspire to accomplish that by conspiring together to spread a lie about the winner?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

resisting, cheating, spying, rioting, I mean, peacefully protesting.... is all approved leftist activity however it is illegal and probably demonstrates the need for re-education for everyone else...what the left is engaged in right now is how every bad, oppressive regime in history got it's start

I, for one, I’m super excited about the new wave of Trump/Bannon Pro Putin Tankies on the American right.

It will help you see them more clearly and understand exactly what they are now.

Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer wonders if the Durham filing's mention of "infiltrate" means there was "hacking" of computers, only for John Ratcliffe to admit that this was actually "lawful access into government servers" by the tech company involved.
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/s...887869443?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kool aid and tin foil not a good combination

But a POTUS attempting to steal an election . For you is just what?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you find yourself repeating the same phrases over and over...you may want to see a therapist :shocked:

And Jim goes right to again show how both are the same amazing

so Jim Trump even after try’s to steal the election and you still don’t understand why he was looked at as Russian asset

And you defend him once again as if he was a victim

The accusation -- which Durham couched in vague, technical language in a court filing late Friday -- has been seized upon by Trump and his supporters, who claim the former President was subjected to a smear campaign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What like defending Trump at every Turn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Makes me wonder who will end up dead by suicide soon

Can’t you find anything new

Isn’t Trump on your pedestal

I don’t recall seeing your views of Jan6th or Trump and his people’s involvement in overturning our election
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't.....you imagine many things then spend considerable time arguing against your imagination...therapy now :btu:

Two things can be true at the same time.

(1) Trump made baseless claims of election fraud, and at least looked into whether or not he could
undo the election. He’s unfit to run again. I don’t know how else i can say that i agree with you, but you’ll never be able to get it.

(2) the hilary campaign spied on trump, and finding nothing, made up allegations of russian collusion whrich the justice department and media ran with. even though there was no evidence.

even after trump won, those who hate him continued the baseless investigation.

they tried to remove him, to undo the results of an election they didn’t happen to like.

they came closer to undoing the 2016 election, than Trump did to undoing 2020. the DOJ didn’t work on Trumps behalf to try and overturn an election. But they did that for Hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good advice that Trump should take and now that his family business accounting firm has distanced themselves with a not so revealing statement that none of their financial records can be trusted; he probably might need some therapy.

:happy: