Hillary Campaign Manager Robby Mook reportedly deleting his emails re: Alfa Bank Hoax.
Now I wonder why he'd do that, especially after being ID'd as one of the Hillary Campaign officials who coordinated with Sussmann on the Alfa Bank head fake.
"And from the Clinton campaign’s perspective, it is shameful (maybe even defamatory in a civil-law sense) to spread false innuendo about a political opponent, but it is not a criminal offense. We do not want law-enforcement involved in electoral politics (that is a big part of what was so wrong about the "collusion" caper), so we discourage such prosecutions unless there is strong evidence of clear, direct lying and obstruction to investigators and courts. Where that can be proved, Durham has filed indictments. That doesn’t mean he can make the case against the whole Clinton campaign."
He's trying to do a balancing act here but he's off-balance favoring the Clinton's and the government in this. I almost thought a couple of sentences in this paragraph were tongue-in-cheek given what is known and how the FBI and DOJ aggressively pursued this with only the scantest of evidence of which most was hearsay.
Wow, this is revealing (about McCarthy). "Durham has not formally alleged that the dossier is false." What? Isn't it clear enough that Durham has been indicting people on the basis that they lied to the FBI? Which in turn indicates that the information they provided was known to them to be false and has been discredited?
"But incompetence, even tinged by malevolence, does not equate to criminal guilt. " Where is the evidence that this was simple incompetence? There is clear evidence of malevolence toward Trump on the part of individuals in the FBI, the DOJ, and the IC, and not just a little bit.
"Durham appears to be convinced that the Clinton campaign concocted the Trump-Russia narrative and peddled it to an all-too-credulous press and Democratic-controlled government. That has the makings of a damning final special counsel report, but not a large-scale indictment." Why wouldn't operatives of a political campaign knowingly peddling false information to government investigative agencies not result in a "large scale indictment" if a lot of people were guilty of doing so? Since when do people in the press by being "all too credulous" provide themselves with immunity against legal prosecution? McCarthy just destroyed whatever credibility he has left. Who is paying him?
Just went back to Kash Patel's appearance on Bartiromo's 3 Oct. show:
He predicted indictments of high level people over the next 6 months or so; FusionGPS/Simpson, Strzok/Page (whom he thinks are cooperating,) and finally McCabe and Comey.
Paul Sperry article -- Ohr is reportedly a target; his wife, a "witness"...
>> "Ohr is now in Durham’s sights, according to sources familiar with his investigation. His wife is also a witness in the special counsel's mushrooming case, the sources said. Attempts to reach the Ohrs for comment were unsuccessful." <<
If I recall, Weissmann sat in on meetings with Bruce Ohr and others involved in the Russia Collusion Hoax, when he had no official DOJ jurisdiction to be involved.
If Brucie co-operates, is Weissmann a "Zombie" target for Durham?
Look at it this way--if you're a witness to a conspiracy against the government, and you just go along, aren't you by that very fact committing an act in furtherance of a conspiracy? So if you don't cooperate, aren't you in jeopardy? I suspect that's her position.
Well, she did more than just "go along" -- she gave a thumb drive loaded with fresh FusionGPS tripe to hubby Bruce, who then passed it along to the FBI for the CH investigation. That's an OVERT act in furtherance.
The other question is whether she was in "agreement" with the criminal purpose of the conspiracy, and whether or not Durham can prove it.
He has her dead to rights on the first element, but we don't know about the second.
My observation: I don't think there's any legal means by which someone could obtain phone numbers of the cell phones around Sergei during the inauguration and share them with Maremont without laws being broken.
If Maremont induced the lawbreaking that lead to him getting those phone numbers, the journalistic privilege does not apply, and worse still he'd be a co-conspirator (or accessory) in that criminal act.
MW, perhaps you have a better insight into whether Maremont could obtain the phone numbers legally. But if it was illegal, and Maremont had any role inducing the crime to be committed, he's a deep poop, and Durham may have some very interesting leads coming from this revelation.
Hill introduced the Clinton Dossier stenographer (Steele) to his primary sub-source (Danchenko,) AND introduced the primary sub-source to the person we NOW know was the source of 4 of the most serious allegations in the Clinton Dossier (Chuck Dolan,) a longtime Clinton acolyte and supporter, and a unpaid foreign policy advisor to Hillary campaign, and who had a Rolodex with reams of Russian officials past and present he met and dealt with.
And she played a significant role in the Trump Faux impeachment #1.
"Topicality is always suspect" -- one of Smiley's wise observations in "Tinker, Tailor ..." -- is the kissing cousin of "those in proximity to multiple explosions just prior to the explosions, are likely either the targets, the bomber, or the bomber's associates." No innocent person has that much bad luck AND good luck simultaneously.
Coincidences like this in politics usually aren't coincidence at all. Ergo, I suspect she's an assistant to the bombers. Being at the very nexus of so many key connections and figures in a conspiracy doesn't happen by chance -- "roast pigeon does not fly into your mouth."
At the very least, I suspect she was dispatched by Talbot to be one of perhaps many anti-Trump moles in the Trump WH and NSC, leaking, reporting back-stabbing as required to undermine and thwart the new POTUS' agenda, while making the cloud over his head darker and more ominous.
Coincidences happen, but no sensible investigator or prosecutor goes around observing things and saying, Oh, wow, what an amazing coincidence! They say, Coincidence? I want proof of that.
I hope she goes down. She is the deep state at its most smug. In testimony during the impeachment hearings, for example, she scoffed at the duly appointed US ambassador to the EU a just somebody "on a political errand."
It means they don't want to do anything precipitate. At a minimum, they want to talk to Durham and see what's up. Beyond that there's absolutely nothing to draw from that except that they're not totally stupid--pleading guilty at this stage would have been totally stupid because it would surrender all bargaining power.
Are you kidding? I could not care less about the chickens coming home to roost in Bill Barr's moral chicken coop or how conflicted he might be at this point given whatever his own beliefs and rationalizations might be. He has done a lot of damage whether he admits it or not.
>> https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1459353379554140160 <<
Patel says they didn't know about the additional Danchenko interviews by FBI => somebody lied to Nunes/HPSCI.
In which case somebody's in big trouble.
hardly.
When the GOP takes charge and zeroes the budget for some favored pet rocks of these orgs,
maybe they'll get some response.
Until then?
Nada.
{SFX: "Dragnet" theme jingle.}
>> https://twitter.com/chiIIum/status/1459301910813581317 <<
Hillary Campaign Manager Robby Mook reportedly deleting his emails re: Alfa Bank Hoax.
Now I wonder why he'd do that, especially after being ID'd as one of the Hillary Campaign officials who coordinated with Sussmann on the Alfa Bank head fake.
Easier said than actually done.
oops. my bad: "tweets, not emails."
"On advice of counsel"?
Then there's good old Andy McCarthy to rain on the parade. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/durham-indictments-collusion-case-direction-andrew-mccarthy
"And from the Clinton campaign’s perspective, it is shameful (maybe even defamatory in a civil-law sense) to spread false innuendo about a political opponent, but it is not a criminal offense. We do not want law-enforcement involved in electoral politics (that is a big part of what was so wrong about the "collusion" caper), so we discourage such prosecutions unless there is strong evidence of clear, direct lying and obstruction to investigators and courts. Where that can be proved, Durham has filed indictments. That doesn’t mean he can make the case against the whole Clinton campaign."
He's trying to do a balancing act here but he's off-balance favoring the Clinton's and the government in this. I almost thought a couple of sentences in this paragraph were tongue-in-cheek given what is known and how the FBI and DOJ aggressively pursued this with only the scantest of evidence of which most was hearsay.
I do not trust McCarthy.
Wow, this is revealing (about McCarthy). "Durham has not formally alleged that the dossier is false." What? Isn't it clear enough that Durham has been indicting people on the basis that they lied to the FBI? Which in turn indicates that the information they provided was known to them to be false and has been discredited?
"But incompetence, even tinged by malevolence, does not equate to criminal guilt. " Where is the evidence that this was simple incompetence? There is clear evidence of malevolence toward Trump on the part of individuals in the FBI, the DOJ, and the IC, and not just a little bit.
"Durham appears to be convinced that the Clinton campaign concocted the Trump-Russia narrative and peddled it to an all-too-credulous press and Democratic-controlled government. That has the makings of a damning final special counsel report, but not a large-scale indictment." Why wouldn't operatives of a political campaign knowingly peddling false information to government investigative agencies not result in a "large scale indictment" if a lot of people were guilty of doing so? Since when do people in the press by being "all too credulous" provide themselves with immunity against legal prosecution? McCarthy just destroyed whatever credibility he has left. Who is paying him?
Just went back to Kash Patel's appearance on Bartiromo's 3 Oct. show:
He predicted indictments of high level people over the next 6 months or so; FusionGPS/Simpson, Strzok/Page (whom he thinks are cooperating,) and finally McCabe and Comey.
And this was before the Danchenko indictment.
Wish he'd give an update on that ...
Paul Sperry article -- Ohr is reportedly a target; his wife, a "witness"...
>> "Ohr is now in Durham’s sights, according to sources familiar with his investigation. His wife is also a witness in the special counsel's mushrooming case, the sources said. Attempts to reach the Ohrs for comment were unsuccessful." <<
>>> https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/11/10/danchenko_indictment_how_dossier_non-source_sergei_millian_was_framed_803079.html <<<
Side comment: I wonder if RCI considered attempting to reach Nellie Ohr by Ham radio?
;-)
I remain fascinated by that ham radio thing.
If I recall, Weissmann sat in on meetings with Bruce Ohr and others involved in the Russia Collusion Hoax, when he had no official DOJ jurisdiction to be involved.
If Brucie co-operates, is Weissmann a "Zombie" target for Durham?
I think so. Ohr was, IMO, far too high up the DoJ chain of command to get a free pass. A deal, maybe, for complete cooperation.
... if and only if Nellie co-operates as well. The fact she's characterized as a "witness," and not a "potential target," suggests perhaps she is.
Look at it this way--if you're a witness to a conspiracy against the government, and you just go along, aren't you by that very fact committing an act in furtherance of a conspiracy? So if you don't cooperate, aren't you in jeopardy? I suspect that's her position.
Well, she did more than just "go along" -- she gave a thumb drive loaded with fresh FusionGPS tripe to hubby Bruce, who then passed it along to the FBI for the CH investigation. That's an OVERT act in furtherance.
The other question is whether she was in "agreement" with the criminal purpose of the conspiracy, and whether or not Durham can prove it.
He has her dead to rights on the first element, but we don't know about the second.
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1458903507612811276 <<
It wasn't my imagination!
Again, as I've been saying: This is why Bruce was allowed to remain employed for so long--because he's been cooperating all along.
A potentially intriguing development:
>> https://twitter.com/SergeiMillian/status/1458845025828233231 <<
My observation: I don't think there's any legal means by which someone could obtain phone numbers of the cell phones around Sergei during the inauguration and share them with Maremont without laws being broken.
If Maremont induced the lawbreaking that lead to him getting those phone numbers, the journalistic privilege does not apply, and worse still he'd be a co-conspirator (or accessory) in that criminal act.
MW, perhaps you have a better insight into whether Maremont could obtain the phone numbers legally. But if it was illegal, and Maremont had any role inducing the crime to be committed, he's a deep poop, and Durham may have some very interesting leads coming from this revelation.
I'm afraid I'm not really up on what can be done with modern location software by private individuals. However, for example:
https://www.whoeasy.com/g/trace-cell-phone-numbers
I'm sure there are other ways.
Hill introduced the Clinton Dossier stenographer (Steele) to his primary sub-source (Danchenko,) AND introduced the primary sub-source to the person we NOW know was the source of 4 of the most serious allegations in the Clinton Dossier (Chuck Dolan,) a longtime Clinton acolyte and supporter, and a unpaid foreign policy advisor to Hillary campaign, and who had a Rolodex with reams of Russian officials past and present he met and dealt with.
And she played a significant role in the Trump Faux impeachment #1.
"Topicality is always suspect" -- one of Smiley's wise observations in "Tinker, Tailor ..." -- is the kissing cousin of "those in proximity to multiple explosions just prior to the explosions, are likely either the targets, the bomber, or the bomber's associates." No innocent person has that much bad luck AND good luck simultaneously.
Coincidences like this in politics usually aren't coincidence at all. Ergo, I suspect she's an assistant to the bombers. Being at the very nexus of so many key connections and figures in a conspiracy doesn't happen by chance -- "roast pigeon does not fly into your mouth."
At the very least, I suspect she was dispatched by Talbot to be one of perhaps many anti-Trump moles in the Trump WH and NSC, leaking, reporting back-stabbing as required to undermine and thwart the new POTUS' agenda, while making the cloud over his head darker and more ominous.
Coincidences happen, but no sensible investigator or prosecutor goes around observing things and saying, Oh, wow, what an amazing coincidence! They say, Coincidence? I want proof of that.
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action...
I hope she goes down. She is the deep state at its most smug. In testimony during the impeachment hearings, for example, she scoffed at the duly appointed US ambassador to the EU a just somebody "on a political errand."
Didn't both Sussman and Dachenko both plead not guilty to their charges? What, if anything, does that tell us or suggest?
It means they don't want to do anything precipitate. At a minimum, they want to talk to Durham and see what's up. Beyond that there's absolutely nothing to draw from that except that they're not totally stupid--pleading guilty at this stage would have been totally stupid because it would surrender all bargaining power.
C'mon man!
LOL!
Are you kidding? I could not care less about the chickens coming home to roost in Bill Barr's moral chicken coop or how conflicted he might be at this point given whatever his own beliefs and rationalizations might be. He has done a lot of damage whether he admits it or not.