Last night in a comment I drew attention to the view of Jonathan Turley, law prof and defense lawyer, regarding Durham’s case so far. I did so because some law pundits on Twitter have been loudly criticizing the performance of Durham’s team. I don’t have the background to judge, so I quoted Turley as counterpoint to the criticism:
Did Joffe feed his Alfa Bank bunkum to the FBI via Sussmann, and then to the FBI through Grasso, but NOT his FBI handler as a CHS?
If so, could it be that the Conspirators learned from bitter experience in August 2016 that a former CHS who feeds his garbage to the FBI via both Steele/FusionGPS AND the former CHS's handler in the NYFO, caused McCabe to realized it was too obvious, and ordered the handler at the NYFO to not have further contact with the former CHS (in my opinion, Baumgartner) as referenced in footnote #461 of the Horowitz report?
Thus, Sussmann and Joffe were warned not to repeat the mistake Baumgartner made in August.
That would explain one reason it was imperative that Sussmann had to lie about not having a client when he brought the Alfa Bank garbage to Baker, and why CHS Joffe had to concurrently slip it into FBI's back door through an agent he knew, rather than his handler, in September.
And they would have known to do this only if there were a conspiracy sharing the info with each other.
I don't always agree w McCarthy, who I think often pulls his punches to avoid being irretrievably thrown out of the Establishment Lawyers Club, but I do think he makes a good point...which I'm sure Sussman's lawyers will use and argue. But, at the end of the day, regardless of HQ's motives, Sussman did lie to Baker and it was 'material'. It was material because the FBI took Sussman's evidence and thoroughly investigated it, leading to further investigations and considerable expenditure of resources. This is 'material'. Baker says that if Sussman had told him he was representing a client, he wouldn't have taken the meeting...and therefore, implicitly, no investigation or expenditure of resources would have followed. I like Durham's chances...subject, of course, to the DC jury problem.
Cash Patel on Hannity radio this afternoon predicting next to be indicted will be Joffe, followed a number of FBIHQ folks, and possibly 2 or more HfA kingpins (Mook and Sullivan.)
That's what he said was coming down in the remainder of THIS year.
Has anyone heard anything from the cuckquean of Bill Clinton since being named by her campaign chair for okaying the Russia Alfa Bank hoax? I haven't. Not even after Donald Trump asked where he was to go to get his reputation back. She (or her twitter mouthpiece) is usually quick to respond to any slight or insinuation she is a loathsome human being. But nothing. All is quiet. What's up?
Or this is part of Durham's strategy to release information to the public, which would otherwise be withheld due to people above him. The previous documentation he released included much more details, than is usual.
Amusing.
Sussman billed Hillary for the usb drives he gave the FBI.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/sussmann-billed-clinton-campaign-for-thumb-drives-he-gave-to-fbi-pushing-alfa-bank-allegations
Did Joffe feed his Alfa Bank bunkum to the FBI via Sussmann, and then to the FBI through Grasso, but NOT his FBI handler as a CHS?
If so, could it be that the Conspirators learned from bitter experience in August 2016 that a former CHS who feeds his garbage to the FBI via both Steele/FusionGPS AND the former CHS's handler in the NYFO, caused McCabe to realized it was too obvious, and ordered the handler at the NYFO to not have further contact with the former CHS (in my opinion, Baumgartner) as referenced in footnote #461 of the Horowitz report?
Thus, Sussmann and Joffe were warned not to repeat the mistake Baumgartner made in August.
That would explain one reason it was imperative that Sussmann had to lie about not having a client when he brought the Alfa Bank garbage to Baker, and why CHS Joffe had to concurrently slip it into FBI's back door through an agent he knew, rather than his handler, in September.
And they would have known to do this only if there were a conspiracy sharing the info with each other.
Andrew McCarthy had an interesting view:
FBI leadership during Russiagate makes Durham’s job in Sussman trial very tricky
FBI leaders during the Russiagate affair were not impartial and that's a big problem for Special Counsel John Durham in the Sussman trial
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/fbi-leadership-russiagate-durham-job-sussman-trial
@Ray
I don't always agree w McCarthy, who I think often pulls his punches to avoid being irretrievably thrown out of the Establishment Lawyers Club, but I do think he makes a good point...which I'm sure Sussman's lawyers will use and argue. But, at the end of the day, regardless of HQ's motives, Sussman did lie to Baker and it was 'material'. It was material because the FBI took Sussman's evidence and thoroughly investigated it, leading to further investigations and considerable expenditure of resources. This is 'material'. Baker says that if Sussman had told him he was representing a client, he wouldn't have taken the meeting...and therefore, implicitly, no investigation or expenditure of resources would have followed. I like Durham's chances...subject, of course, to the DC jury problem.
Cash Patel on Hannity radio this afternoon predicting next to be indicted will be Joffe, followed a number of FBIHQ folks, and possibly 2 or more HfA kingpins (Mook and Sullivan.)
That's what he said was coming down in the remainder of THIS year.
Who knows what 2023 holds ...
Has anyone heard anything from the cuckquean of Bill Clinton since being named by her campaign chair for okaying the Russia Alfa Bank hoax? I haven't. Not even after Donald Trump asked where he was to go to get his reputation back. She (or her twitter mouthpiece) is usually quick to respond to any slight or insinuation she is a loathsome human being. But nothing. All is quiet. What's up?
Or this is part of Durham's strategy to release information to the public, which would otherwise be withheld due to people above him. The previous documentation he released included much more details, than is usual.
That's what closing arguments are for.
Exactly.