14 Comments
User's avatar
EZ's avatar

And another:

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1438921352799522816

I, too, sense there may well be a connection between the Alfa Bank hoaxters and Guccifer 2.0 It all fits together into a larger scheme too well to be random, independent efforts, or so it seems to me.

Expand full comment
EZ's avatar

Add this tweet by SWC:

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1438900042262220801

Dan Jones is #1 on his list of NG targets for Durham

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

You want to see things laid out from a conspiracy standpoint google DawsonSField Twitter timeline. Talks about the non-public access originating out of the Washington FBI field office. Guess who was one of their head honcho’s? Mr. Andrew McCabe.

Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

I suspect he's mistaken in this. My understanding is that the MOU dates back to 2012. It would not have been initiated by WFO but by FBIHQ, even if activities under it may have taken place at WFO. IOW, Bob Mueller signed off on the MOU at a time when Andrew Weissmann was his top legal guy at the FBI. It was probably timed for the 2012 election. IMO, it was illegal--but who am I to question smart lawyers like Bob and Andy?

Expand full comment
AmericanCardigan's avatar

Interesting. Appreciate added context. This persons timeline is pretty good though.

Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

Jen Dyer wrote pretty extensively on the MOU and I followed up on a few things.

Expand full comment
kaishaku's avatar

Speaking of Jen, yesterday she wrote about antics w/ WI votes.

In the article to which she links is the following:

< The clerk’s denial of the open records also notes another reason for her rejection: proprietary interests.

“Even if the records you are requesting did exist, we would not release the information … (because) The records you are requesting contain *trade secrets* of ES&S (Election Systems & Software),” Tollefson wrote.

Brandtjen finds such a response infuriating.

“‘(They’re saying) All you taxpayers that put money into training and the elections themselves and the millions of dollars in equipment, no, no no, you’re just going to have to trust us, and there’s no ability to have that chance to check any of the machinery,’” the lawmaker said. >

One wonders why these ES&S "trade secrets" couldn't be redacted (e.g. by a judge)?

Expand full comment
perle's avatar

I take very seriously the statements of Donald J. Trump. In his 'most important speech' of December 5 he stated that his most important accomplishment would be restoring election integrity. More recently he stated "We got 'em. We got 'em all. " Everybody is impatient. Not me. "Let your plans be dark as the night, and when you strike, strike like lightning." (Sun Tzu) Lately the sources of information on the Internet I rely on have been silent. The Arizona recount is strangely delayed. Durham is coming to life. When Trump stated that this fraud could not go on or the Country would be permanently damaged, I assumed we had another year possibly. Afghanistan, the Durham statute of limitations and the radical moves designed to assure a permanent takeover of our government dictate otherwise. Clinesmith and other small potatoes have been neglected purposely. This current scandal will reach to the highest levels of government, and most government institutions as well as the media will be forced to join the Trump bandwagon or they will not survive.

Expand full comment
kaishaku's avatar

"the sources of information on the Internet I rely on have been silent. The Arizona recount is strangely delayed. Durham is coming to life....."

How are those connected?

"I assumed we had another year possibly. Afghanistan, the Durham statute of limitations and the radical moves designed to assure a permanent takeover of our government *dictate* otherwise. Clinesmith and other small potatoes have been neglected purposely."

Again, how does Afgh. connect to Durham's SoLs etc.?

"This current scandal will reach to the highest levels of government, and most government *institutions* as well as the *media* will be forced to join the Trump bandwagon or they will not survive."

What makes you so sure of any of this?

Expand full comment
perle's avatar

Sure? Not at all, but that everything has been kept under wraps and what is going on, if anything, is clandestine, augments my feeling that something is going on, as per Sun Tzu. Going back seven or eight months there were credible stories by J. E. Dyer and others suggesting operations by American super-sleuths had uncovered details on the election theft that would be coming out. These have been forgotten. In the meantime many of Trump's supporters have given up hope, and at the same time his enemies have been emboldened to take radical steps which would put them even more in jeopardy. What is going on? Could be nothing. Could be huuuge.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Sep 17, 2021
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Sep 17, 2021
Comment removed
Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Sep 18, 2021
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

I read that earlier and was going to comment later. Right now I'm taking a break from lawn cutting. I'm not going to say his concerns are not founded. However, one are that Surber is lacking is in legal matters. Durham was not given a free hand in the Bulger case--as far as that went he did what he was allowed to do. That's why, way back, I kept saying I thought Durham had unfinished business re Mueller.

The question which others have raised--Hans Mahncke and others--is: Is Durham working under restrictions that we may not be aware of? If so, should he have taken the job, based on his experience with the Bulger case?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Sep 17, 2021
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

That's pretty spot on. I had discounted his earlier tweeting re Durham, but he turns out right. Also, I agree with his view that McCabe is basically the low end of big names. Despite what others may think, I don't see Strzok and Page as big names. Big in the Bureau, maybe, but not in DC. I welcome all indictments, of course, but an indictment of, say, Strzok isn't really accountability except for him personally.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Sep 17, 2021
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Anne Sherman's avatar

I note that Emmet Sullivan is still active and issuing corrupt decisions. I have NO confidence that cases are randomly assigned in DC. Of course, there are so many of Sullivan's ilk in DC that it nearly doesn't matter who a case is assigned to.

Expand full comment
perle's avatar

I assume that Durham and election fraud are being timed to coincide. Arizona might have come out weeks ago, and may have been purposely delayed. Additional proof of election fraud that exists and has not yet revealed could be compelling. Election fraud is a National Security issue. What body, civilian or military, would be qualified to rule on an unprecedented case such as this, especially if foreign actors are involved?

Expand full comment