Am I correct in inferring that if the emails to/from FusionGPS, which Durham obtained, and which were listed in a "privilege log" of Sussmann's comms, it implies Durham has penetrated the "privilege"?
Fusion can't waive the privilege because Fusion isn't the client; they are a contractor hired by PC, on behalf of Hillary's campaign (the client.) And if Sussmann/FusionGPS comms are attorney "work product" again, Fusion cannot unilaterally turn them over to Durham.
IOW, does this logically imply Durham's only way of obtaining these emails between Sussmann and Fusion would be if the attorney/client privilege is penetrated by something like the crime /fraud exception?
And the existence of a "privilege log" itself implies there was a subpoena, and that it must have been ruled on by a court in Durham's favor?
This is my fault. I recently saw somewhere that Elias is the one who set up these relationships with the express aim of being able to invoke a privilege. I can't remember where that was, but I do recall that the claim was made that Elias devised the relationships with that express purpose in mind. I can't claim any expertise in the privilege field, never had any experience. However ...
Attorney - client isn't the only attorney related privilege. There is also an "attorney work product" privilege that covers "materials prepared by or FOR an attorney in the course of legal representation." Certainly both Crowdstrike and Fusion GPS would have been preparing materials for PC "in the course of legal representation."
The key, as I understand it, is that this privilege must be in anticipation of litigation. However, that can be very broadly interpreted. For a long rundown:
So, if this is what is going on, the question is: how credible was the assertion of anticipated litigation? Obviously not very credible, if that was at issue. Still, it remains that it was attorney - client privilege: perhaps PC claimed to have been representing Crowdstrike and/or Fusion because those firms--in addition to the DNC hack--claimed to need legal advice for the work they were doing and so were in a client relationship. At some point we'll learn the details.
Now, would there have been a subpoena and a ruling in favor of Durham? As before, I think that's undoubtedly the case, regardless of the privilege asserted and regardless of the rationale for defeating the privilege.
And don't forget: the only subjects of subpoenas we're getting some notion of here are those that pertain directly to Sussmann and his dealings. There could be many others.
This reference to Fusion acting as "an agent of the Clinton campaign" may hint at an assertion of att/client, i.e., that Sussmann was claiming Fusion as a client for the purpose of Fusion's agency for the Clinton campaign. Speculation.
He makes the significant observation that Durham would not have gone to the extent he did in subpoenaing documents and witnesses to a Grand Jury, as revealed by his Opposition filing, if everything the Georgia Tech researchers did re the Alfa Bank DNS allegations were legal and proper.
All that is a given, considering the indictment narrative. You knew that would develop, and we probably will learn even more. Durham's not going to hang it all out in public before it's time. As I said, the emails were damning.
>> "Gonna go out on a limb and suggest Durham has all the chips and is in control. At this point he's just letting people know they can make it easy or make it hard.
He referred to his own indictment, as a "speaking indictment", as if to say, "yup". <<
>> If you doubt this, read Sussmanns wining diatribe begging for a bill of particulars side by side next to Durhams reply and ask yourself who's really calling the shots here. <<
I'm not saying that prosecutors would do any indictment lightly, but I would say that these indictments are ones that any prosecutor would think long and hard about. From Durham's standpoint these are not going to be speculative indictments.
Also, I addressed this earlier by quoting SWC's explanation that these types of motions are basically an outdated type of pleading and are rarely granted due to modern rules of discovery. That also accounts for Durham's confidence.
I saw that. My best guess is Priestap. He was AD for CI, so probably the logical pick. I say that because, while there is a Cyber Division, I don't believe they do substantive investigations. CD (Counterintelligence Division) does. Since the supposed "hack" was by the Russians, it would logically be a CD matter.
>> "Soon after his meeting with the defendant, the FBI General Counsel spoke with the FBI’s Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division (the “FBI Assistant Director”)." <<
The defendant’s core contention – that a bill of particulars is appropriate because the Indictment lacks sufficient “detail and clarity” for the defendant to prepare his defense – is without merit. The defendant asserts that particulars are warranted because the Indictment (1) does not allege the precise false statement that the defendant made; (2) makes “confusing and stray” allegations which were not charged; (3) fails to provide particulars regarding how the false statement is material; (4) does not allege the precise false statement made to other government agents; and (5) does not identify by name the representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign. See Mot. at 2-5. But what the defendant’s Motion really seeks is “detail and clarity” concerning how the government intends to argue its proof to the jury – information to which he is not entitled at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion can most accurately be described as an attempt to gain insight into the government’s trial strategy. The outcome sought by
the defendant’s Motion is inconsistent with well-settled law, and ignores the extensive disclosures already contained in the Indictment and those made (and soon to be made) in discovery. For these reasons, the Motion should be denied." <<
When Durham re-surfaced recently, we all speculated whether he would be allowed to complete his work. Now it appears that he will, but that he will be undercut every step of the way, with miscreants pardoned and rehabilitated in the public eye until the entire miasma disappears into what that chump Andrew McCarthy might call a "Ball of Confusion." Already, even those of us who have followed this for years feel our eyes glazing over. With McCabe pocketing $700K and having his record wiped clean ("You mean, like with a cloth?") it begins to look like this is all just the Final Act in the play titled, "Yes, there is a Deep State but there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop us. Get f***ed, America."
Nixon found out that the cover-up can be worse than the crime. All this fancy maneuvering involves more shady dealings, and the media is up to its eyeballs in this. Then there is Arizona, and a bunch of other States as well. What I want to know is, what does President Trump know and what can he prove. They are kicking the sleeping lion, and I'm not sure he is asleep. Yes, there is a war going on.
Reading about the Deripaska raid this a.m. on CFP was a tweet from Peter Strzok no less, who tries to link Deripaska to Paul Manafort but is swatted away by Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) who mentions that Deripaska was also employed by Christopher Steele.
Strzok emerging now seems unusual if he is, as some surmise, cooperating with Durham.
using the faux interview to portray Elias's work as "pro-democracy" allows anyone subsequently "attacking" Elias to be declared as "anti-democracy."
An indictment of Elias by Durham will thus be treated like an invasion of the Halls of Congress by drunken 6 Jan demonstrators -- an "anti-democratic insurrection."
Durham is about to get the same treatment Starr did when he dropped the Stained Blue Dress report on Bill Clinton. He will be accused of charging Elias because Elias is such an effective "defender" of electoral democracy, and Durham is thus a partisan stooge of the Democracy-hating Evil Trump - GOP.
1) there is no such thing as a coincidence in politics, especially electoral politics.
2) As "George Smiley" puts in in "Tinker, Tailor, ..." "topicality is always suspect." Getting just the right piece of information at just the moment you need it most (or can make good use of it) should NOT make you happy; it should make you very suspicious of wherever it came from.
3) Old Hungarian proverb: "Roast pigeon does not fly into your mouth."
Humor:
>> https://twitter.com/bhweingarten/status/1451226897719992324 <<
Belaboring the obvious.
check this detail out from Durham's filing:
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCPkGwLXsAcenRI?format=jpg&name=large <<
Am I correct in inferring that if the emails to/from FusionGPS, which Durham obtained, and which were listed in a "privilege log" of Sussmann's comms, it implies Durham has penetrated the "privilege"?
Fusion can't waive the privilege because Fusion isn't the client; they are a contractor hired by PC, on behalf of Hillary's campaign (the client.) And if Sussmann/FusionGPS comms are attorney "work product" again, Fusion cannot unilaterally turn them over to Durham.
IOW, does this logically imply Durham's only way of obtaining these emails between Sussmann and Fusion would be if the attorney/client privilege is penetrated by something like the crime /fraud exception?
And the existence of a "privilege log" itself implies there was a subpoena, and that it must have been ruled on by a court in Durham's favor?
This is my fault. I recently saw somewhere that Elias is the one who set up these relationships with the express aim of being able to invoke a privilege. I can't remember where that was, but I do recall that the claim was made that Elias devised the relationships with that express purpose in mind. I can't claim any expertise in the privilege field, never had any experience. However ...
Attorney - client isn't the only attorney related privilege. There is also an "attorney work product" privilege that covers "materials prepared by or FOR an attorney in the course of legal representation." Certainly both Crowdstrike and Fusion GPS would have been preparing materials for PC "in the course of legal representation."
The key, as I understand it, is that this privilege must be in anticipation of litigation. However, that can be very broadly interpreted. For a long rundown:
https://sterlingmiller2014.wordpress.com/2019/06/05/ten-things-a-primer-on-the-work-product-privilege/
So, if this is what is going on, the question is: how credible was the assertion of anticipated litigation? Obviously not very credible, if that was at issue. Still, it remains that it was attorney - client privilege: perhaps PC claimed to have been representing Crowdstrike and/or Fusion because those firms--in addition to the DNC hack--claimed to need legal advice for the work they were doing and so were in a client relationship. At some point we'll learn the details.
Now, would there have been a subpoena and a ruling in favor of Durham? As before, I think that's undoubtedly the case, regardless of the privilege asserted and regardless of the rationale for defeating the privilege.
Also see this:
https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ia7aac90f642211e38578f7ccc38dcbee/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true
And don't forget: the only subjects of subpoenas we're getting some notion of here are those that pertain directly to Sussmann and his dealings. There could be many others.
https://twitter.com/_mzishi_/status/1451254385489612801/photo/1
This reference to Fusion acting as "an agent of the Clinton campaign" may hint at an assertion of att/client, i.e., that Sussmann was claiming Fusion as a client for the purpose of Fusion's agency for the Clinton campaign. Speculation.
Latest analysis by Techno-Fog of the Durham's Opposition to Motion for Bill of Particulars:
>> https://technofog.substack.com/p/john-durham-gears-up-against-the <<
He makes the significant observation that Durham would not have gone to the extent he did in subpoenaing documents and witnesses to a Grand Jury, as revealed by his Opposition filing, if everything the Georgia Tech researchers did re the Alfa Bank DNS allegations were legal and proper.
Worth reading the whole thing.
All that is a given, considering the indictment narrative. You knew that would develop, and we probably will learn even more. Durham's not going to hang it all out in public before it's time. As I said, the emails were damning.
DOJ is corrupt through and through. Needs to be gutted to the studs. Maybe swapout every east coast law school graduate with a law school graduate from Nebraska or Montana. https://mobile.twitter.com/PandaTribune/status/1451224271854919691
An interesting, if minor catch ...
>> https://twitter.com/TheDurhamReport/status/1451033361275891712 <<
>>Minor point, but Durham seems to have added a little more context today.
In Sussmann’s indictment (p. 10), Durham previously stated “…that would please certain VIP’s”.
In today’s filing, he adds, “‘VIPs’, referring to individuals at [PC] & the Clinton Campaign.” (p. 3) <<
Jeff Carlson then points out Joffe was already working with Sussmann at PC, so that leaves ....
;-)
Apparently, I'm not the only one getting this sense:
>> https://twitter.com/Larry_Beech/status/1450997553760292864 <<
>> https://twitter.com/Larry_Beech/status/1451004630436024325 <<
>> "Gonna go out on a limb and suggest Durham has all the chips and is in control. At this point he's just letting people know they can make it easy or make it hard.
He referred to his own indictment, as a "speaking indictment", as if to say, "yup". <<
>> If you doubt this, read Sussmanns wining diatribe begging for a bill of particulars side by side next to Durhams reply and ask yourself who's really calling the shots here. <<
I'm not saying that prosecutors would do any indictment lightly, but I would say that these indictments are ones that any prosecutor would think long and hard about. From Durham's standpoint these are not going to be speculative indictments.
Also, I addressed this earlier by quoting SWC's explanation that these types of motions are basically an outdated type of pleading and are rarely granted due to modern rules of discovery. That also accounts for Durham's confidence.
More on Sussmann:
>> https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1450945231440986114 <<
>> https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1450946437836070913 <<
GJ subpoenaed docs from 15 people/entities, 6000 total docs totaling 81K pages.
Declassified material coming from 30 reports of interviews by Durham's investigation, plus GJ testimony.
It refers to an "FBI AD." Do we know who this refers to? McCabe? Rosenstein?
Looks to me like Durham has made a long list, and has checked it twice. Santa will be pleased.
I saw that. My best guess is Priestap. He was AD for CI, so probably the logical pick. I say that because, while there is a Cyber Division, I don't believe they do substantive investigations. CD (Counterintelligence Division) does. Since the supposed "hack" was by the Russians, it would logically be a CD matter.
You were right:
>> "Soon after his meeting with the defendant, the FBI General Counsel spoke with the FBI’s Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division (the “FBI Assistant Director”)." <<
>> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.19.0.pdf <<
That's from:
"GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS"
>> "ARGUMENT
The defendant’s core contention – that a bill of particulars is appropriate because the Indictment lacks sufficient “detail and clarity” for the defendant to prepare his defense – is without merit. The defendant asserts that particulars are warranted because the Indictment (1) does not allege the precise false statement that the defendant made; (2) makes “confusing and stray” allegations which were not charged; (3) fails to provide particulars regarding how the false statement is material; (4) does not allege the precise false statement made to other government agents; and (5) does not identify by name the representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign. See Mot. at 2-5. But what the defendant’s Motion really seeks is “detail and clarity” concerning how the government intends to argue its proof to the jury – information to which he is not entitled at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion can most accurately be described as an attempt to gain insight into the government’s trial strategy. The outcome sought by
the defendant’s Motion is inconsistent with well-settled law, and ignores the extensive disclosures already contained in the Indictment and those made (and soon to be made) in discovery. For these reasons, the Motion should be denied." <<
It made sense, but I think I probably saw that previously somewhere.
This just in ... on the Alfa Bank civil litigation:
>> https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1450954426798256131 <<
IIRC, you can only invoke the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination when there is a reasonable likelihood of facing criminal charges.
IOW, Alfa Bank is "over the target" with the phony-baloney DNS data, and so is Durham ... just as we suspected.
Yeah, the researchers have serious problems because of those emails with Joffe. They knew it was phony.
Two houses owned by Deripaska family members were searched; one NYC, one DC. Sanctions-related.
>> https://twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1450534021461651464 <<
Speculation is he would not own property in US because of sanctions (or potential for them.) Family may be cut-outs.
When Durham re-surfaced recently, we all speculated whether he would be allowed to complete his work. Now it appears that he will, but that he will be undercut every step of the way, with miscreants pardoned and rehabilitated in the public eye until the entire miasma disappears into what that chump Andrew McCarthy might call a "Ball of Confusion." Already, even those of us who have followed this for years feel our eyes glazing over. With McCabe pocketing $700K and having his record wiped clean ("You mean, like with a cloth?") it begins to look like this is all just the Final Act in the play titled, "Yes, there is a Deep State but there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop us. Get f***ed, America."
Nixon found out that the cover-up can be worse than the crime. All this fancy maneuvering involves more shady dealings, and the media is up to its eyeballs in this. Then there is Arizona, and a bunch of other States as well. What I want to know is, what does President Trump know and what can he prove. They are kicking the sleeping lion, and I'm not sure he is asleep. Yes, there is a war going on.
Sundance has a take --> https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/19/fbi-raids-dc-home-of-oleg-deripaska-chris-steeles-former-employer-and-central-player-in-corrupt-fbi-operation-against-donald-trump/
In fact I just got done reading that, and noted that we're in pretty much complete agreement as to what's going on. Well, it's not rocket science.
Reading about the Deripaska raid this a.m. on CFP was a tweet from Peter Strzok no less, who tries to link Deripaska to Paul Manafort but is swatted away by Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) who mentions that Deripaska was also employed by Christopher Steele.
Strzok emerging now seems unusual if he is, as some surmise, cooperating with Durham.
Deripaska employed Steele, via Attorney Waldman, not the other way around.
Not too bright, that. Would you mind providing a link?
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/breaking-fbi-agents-swarm-washington-home-of-russian-oligarch-oleg-deripaska/
It may be necessary for Durham to hold out through Election 2022. Barring dramatic socio-political-economic developments, which can't be counted out.
"hold out through Election 2022", meaning, delay more charges 'til then?
using the faux interview to portray Elias's work as "pro-democracy" allows anyone subsequently "attacking" Elias to be declared as "anti-democracy."
An indictment of Elias by Durham will thus be treated like an invasion of the Halls of Congress by drunken 6 Jan demonstrators -- an "anti-democratic insurrection."
Durham is about to get the same treatment Starr did when he dropped the Stained Blue Dress report on Bill Clinton. He will be accused of charging Elias because Elias is such an effective "defender" of electoral democracy, and Durham is thus a partisan stooge of the Democracy-hating Evil Trump - GOP.
How effective this will be remains to be seen.
Regarding "coincidences":
1) there is no such thing as a coincidence in politics, especially electoral politics.
2) As "George Smiley" puts in in "Tinker, Tailor, ..." "topicality is always suspect." Getting just the right piece of information at just the moment you need it most (or can make good use of it) should NOT make you happy; it should make you very suspicious of wherever it came from.
3) Old Hungarian proverb: "Roast pigeon does not fly into your mouth."
Love #3.