>>> The people familiar with the matter spoke on condition of anonymity because the indictment of Mr. Danchenko had yet to be unsealed. A spokesman for Mr. Durham did not respond to a request for comment. <<<
TL:Didn't Watch -- Patel lays out a foundation on which he concludes, or more accurately, says he has reason to "suspect" Crowdstrike played a significant role in the Alfa Bank Hoax. Some of the basis for this is material that has not been released, so he can't talk about it, but he notes that he hopes the Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack" is made public so everyone can see what he knows about. He mentions a source who has seen some of the Crowdstrike reports on the DNC "hack," and that source told him the impression he got was that Crowdstrike put lots of effort into selling the attribution for a hack of the DNC on the Russians, when they had very little to back it up.
He does a bit of dancing, since he can't discuss things that are still being held back, but he does make it clear one thing he suspects is that Crowdstrike may have played a role in helping to fabricate the DNS data in the Alfa Bank Hoax.
This is fascinating to me, since I opined the same suspicion about Crowdstrike involvement in the Alfa Bank Hoax a few weeks ago. Patel, however, has much more information to go on that I do, so his "suspicion" carries much more significance than mine does.
Another side story he makes clear is that anything Durham is stating as a "possibility" in the Sussmann indictment is something he already can prove, otherwise he would never have put it in the indictment in the first place. So when Durham's indictment of Sussmann intimates the possibility that some or most of the DNS data could be fabricated or misrepresented intentionally, Patel says you can take it to the bank that Durham can PROVE what he's intimating.
Lots of other interesting details you do not typically hear about in the entire interview.
My understanding is that Crowdstrike was basically told by Sussmann to quickly come up with the Russian hacking narrative. Of course that makes them part of the conspiracy.
If true, it's the sort of thing we've been waiting for.
Wish he spilled a few more beans so we know who he's referring to.
A guess: Steele and Danchenko, perhaps among others, since they both lied about him and claimed he was both involved in The Collusion, and was a sub-source for some of the crap Danchenko shoveled to Steele for his Dossier.
I didn't notice much new in the article, mostly a rehash of what we've seen in a variety of different sources, though he does characterize the spreading of the Alfa bank Hoax across the government as a scheme that was far bigger than some may have thought, and continued after the election.
Yes, while we knew that from the indictment it does confirm that the Alfa Bank hoax was far more central to the overall Russia Hoax than was supposed for a long time.
Peter Strzok is on the attack. Or at least active defense.
A remarkable piece from a real slippery character, a jaw dropping amount of self-serving half-truths and unrelated fluff. And the claim that Trump is still a national security threat!
"Late in the evening of Oct. 6, attorneys for former Department of Justice attorney and former Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann filed a motion for a bill of particulars relating to his indictment by Special Counsel John Durham. The indictment charges Sussmann with one count of making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016, in conjunction with providing allegations that computer systems connected to the Russian Alfa Bank had anomalous contact with an internet domain associated with the Trump Organization.
[Full disclosure, I had a minor role in the events in question, insofar as I transferred the material Sussmann gave to Jim Baker, the FBI’s general counsel at the time, to the personnel who ultimately supervised and looked into the allegations.] "
This is a little long in examples but I think (MHO) they carry merit on the current subject...
Durham has been historically great for producing very large case reports on very big and ugly subjects. (Boston) That said he is also great at chewing mountains of evidence down into grand jury protected garbage. For that reason, but not that reason alone I'm still banking on this being a very small speed bump in the end.
I say this in the basis of what we've seen time and time again were multiple cases on bad actors just go by the wayside.
I expected Durham to shift from FBI and CIA focus to 3rd parties, NGOs, etc. It made perfect sense, the institutions are now "the victims". (I'll be damned if I'm cheering that BS no matter who around Sussmann goes down.) Also, I'll note, that's very fine, agency positive narrative creation on Durham's behalf.
That is the larger goal...
I expected Wolfe and Clinesmith to skate off into the sunset when all of the hyped legal analysis said to expect massive production of flipped actors and wide spread results to flow... And they did... With no cooperation. (We would know if they were or did, disclosure is federal law)
I expected the Clinton / Platte River Networks email scandal to fall flat despite very clear public evidence of destruction and coordinated conspiracy plastered all over the internet (plaster by the idiot actors themselves, Reddit, Bleachbit)... and it did.
Sussmann ran the EXACT same conspiracy to mislead in the DNC Russian email hacking case using many of the same actors, agencies, firms and methodologies. They've been doing this stuff for decades now. It's part of their campaign SOP of creating propaganda and using federal agencies to bolster their positions. By they are not the only ones in DC running this game.
All of these things relate back to the same two issues of intent. To create propaganda for the sake of driving fake narratives while protecting those who engage in these acts.
There is a hypocrisy here of the agencies THEMSELVES doing this by leaking to the press in the same way for the same purposes of bolstering their poor claims for everything from narrative control, getting ahead of bad press, or to bolster poorly constructed FISA case evidence. (Sister agencies leaking, Page FISA)
The NIH and CDC are very busy doing this exact same thing with covid at the moment. They are not only in a conspiracy to mislead the public but also the government it's self. (Paul vs Fauci)
All of these things are about power, control and agency self justification.
It's not that I've gotten myself all amped up on TGP articles or insane legal analysis in the past and short circuited. It's just that historically speaking a government and it's agents are not capable of holding anyone accountable on such a hypocrisy.
Lastly, on Durham, he was appointed by Barr and Barr loved his precious insututions (CIA, R Ridge, Massage, and Snowden) and government engrained 3rd party cronyism dearly. There is not a chance in hell the man he entrusted to oversee the spiderweb of criminal acts committed is going to do anything but bury and limit the connections. Especially when he's already creating a narrative to protect them. (Victims)
Big picture, we are talking about dismantling DC's long standing network of top ranking movers and shakers in the propaganda machine .. Does ANYONE honestly believe that's going to happen? I personally don't.
Mark I love your analysis and writing, these subjects are vast and highly important to cover. My variation is, I just don't share the optimism of actual or meaningful results in the accountability aspect.
But Sussmann's filing indicates the testimony already took place; Baker has not as yet testified, that we know of.
And how would Sussmann's attorney's know what the immunized witness told the GJ? Only the witness themselves can divulge that until it's in an indictment. So did someone with immunity run to Sussmann's lawyers and spill their guts?
Or, who's to say what the witness told Sussmann's attorneys was true? It not like he's under oath, unless they took a sworn depo from him.
If there has been an indictment then it's likely that key witnesses testified before the GJ. In the circs I would expect that that would have included Baker--he's the person the false statement was made to. Since we know that Baker will be a witness, I assume Durham has turned over a witness list, at least as regards this indictment as it stands.
That's a very brief tweet. Here's what's behind it. A witness can be granted immunity NOT because the witness is cooperative but precisely to COMPEL testimony--if immunity is given, then the witness can't take the 5th for whatever he received immunity for.
However ...
That immunity is likely to be very narrowly circumscribed, and that's what I was getting at when I said Baker may still be in jeopardy otherwise.
It all depends, which is why speculation is futile, given how little info we actually have at this point.
I would recommend against speculating too much. This is one count in an ongoing case. Baker could also be a witness or even possibly in jeopardy if there is even a CP FISA case. OTOH, he could get consideration for helping there, too. I absolutely recommend against speculation at this point.
Buried in the filing is "exculpatory" claim that in the taxi ride to and from Sussmann's meeting with FBI's Baker, during which he claimed he was providing the Alfa Bank DNS data/analysis on behalf of no client, despite charging his time for the meeting and prep for it, to Hillary's campign account, he expensed the taxi rides against no client of the firm.
I have two comments:
1) which is the bigger expense? What Sussmann charged to Hillary's campaign to prepare the white papers, coordinate with Joffe and the researchers, FusionGPS, etc., and deliver the DNS garbage to Baker at FBI, or what he expensed for the taxi rides to and from the meeting???? Which is more indicative of who he was working on behalf of at the time?
2) his time charges and his expense report contradict each other, which means he has to be lying on one, the other, or BOTH! Expensing the taxi ride to overhead is a false charge if he's actually working on behalf of specific client(s), because overhead is charged off across all accounts. In DoD contracting, this is big no-no; its charge fraud (because it transfers legitimate charges against one contract and effectively charges them, via overhead, against all contracts. So his defense basically implies that he's a liar on either his time charges or his expense account, or both!
Pretty desperate defense, it would seem, to stipulate your client is a liar.
Another thought: if, arguendo, Sussmann were not working on behalf of any client when he worked on the Alfa Bank stuff, then he cannot claim attorney-client privilege exist to protect his communications related to that topic, because by his own admission, there is no client whose privilege is being protected!!!!!!
Going a step further, if there is no client on whose behalf the Alfa bank work was being done by Sussmann, then it also logically follows that there can be no "work-product privilege" between a Perkin Coie contractor and Sussmann for work done by the contractor in relation to the Alfa Bank Hoax!
IF Durham does not already have every document and record PC has in relation to Sussmann and the Alfa bank Hoax, I would expect Durham's prosecutors to obtain a subpoena from the GJ demanding EVERYTHING, and when PC argues privilege or work product, shove Sussmann's filing in the judge's face, and point out Sussmann has admitted in filings to the court he had no client, thus no client privilege, nor work product privilege, to protect! KA-BOOM!
That is bad behavior and probably won't impress the judge that the case ultimately winds up in front of. It's probably not a smart thing to do, sacrificing good will. Judges probably aren't going to rule in a biased manner because they know an attorney is a jerk, but they won't be disposed to do any favors, either.
I can't think of any particular significance beyond the fact that DC is central to the investigation. However it needn't be central to any prosecution.
As Winston Churchill stated after a major victory at El Alamein in North Africa "This is not the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning".
The stunning part is that the entire Alfa Bank / Russiagate bs is the weakest reed of all the allegations.
If they have this much on Sussman hawking the DNS fabrications and the white paper , good grief, what must they have on the FISAs, Carter Page, Papadopolus, Flynn, and the Steele idiocy?
One question - the DNI said this was all done initially to cover up Hillary’s server felonies. Does that open a line of inquiry there?
There are multiple lines of inquiry. Off the top of my head, I would be most interested to see whether Durham could tie the Alfa Bank players together with the Carter Page FISA players, as well as with GP.
The Alfa Bank-researching DNS contractors don't seem to be the same that had access to the NSA WHOIS lookups misused at by FBI contractor. AFAIK we still don't know who that was.
I had assumed some employees of a FBI HUMINT contractor, not some bunch of internet traffic analyst dweebs. The sheer nonchalance demonstrated in the emails - hey! let's just make this shit up!! even though anyone that knows what we know will know it's bs - is chilling. Putting a few of them in the pen should provide a valuable lesson for others.
And Dan Jones, who, after the election, and at FusionGPS's behest, generated the 600 page report he "gave" to the Senate Committee, trying to resuscitate the Alfa Bank/Trump "Morse Code by DNS" madness.
Steele also played a role, generating a memo in the Dossier claiming he had sources for the sale Alfa Bank nonsense, when in reality he heard about it from FusionGPS! To the extent he acted in furtherance of that conspiracy, he, too, could be a co-conspirator.
Won't such a prosecution bring Bull Durham in direct conflict with the Obama Administration players Brennan, Comey, Rice, Yates et al (which means the Biden Administration)? After all didn't John Brennan advise Obama that it was all a Hillary Clinton dirty trick? What they're going to claim the US government was tricked into a Russia investigation, by Michael Sussmann?
At a minimum, most of these people are potential witnesses. Depending on facts, if they did anything that could be construed to advance the conspiracy--even a neutral/lawful action--they could be drawn in as subjects of prosecution.
Perhaps Durham would be wise to not go after those people until he has demonstrated to the public that serious crimes were being committed by sucessful prosecutions or plea agreements with lower level conspirators attesting to the conspiracy and the roles of higher-ups. Then, shutting Durham down would be politically untenable, or so I hope.
Crap rolls downhill, prosecutions tend to work their way up.
Lower level guys get plea bargains
for providing info on the major players above them.
If their bosses are indicted, I guess the best bets of lower level guys' nailed by evidence are pleading out to save the govt time and effort of trial, which tends to engender some 'good will' and a lower level charge than possible,
a different thing entirely from becoming a cooperating witness whose ultimate charge is dependent on cooperating fully and over time.
I can't imagine Hillary putting anything in writing - she's surrounded by lawyer / advisors.
Donna Brazile and John Podesta provide the firebreak against anything illegal, maybe even the hapless Jake Sullivan. All lawyers. The Dems perfected this - claiming everything is client - attorney privilege.
FLASH TRAFFIC!!!
>> https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1456262178370056200 <<
Durham arrests Danchenko!!!!
The bigger question is what does this mean. Why arrest instead of indict? Was he fleeing the country? No details so far.
I'm working on this. He was indicted, but the indictment hasn't been released. Perhaps later.
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/igor-danchenko-arrested-steele-dossier.html <<
>>> The people familiar with the matter spoke on condition of anonymity because the indictment of Mr. Danchenko had yet to be unsealed. A spokesman for Mr. Durham did not respond to a request for comment. <<<
FYI: >> https://spectator.org/john-durham-steele-dossier/ <<
George Parry's #7 in his series on Durham-related issues
Don't know if you've covered this before;
You need to watch this interview by Aaron Mate of Cash Patel, starting at the ~16 minute point, and up through about 30+ minutes:
>> https://youtu.be/4p2rtZI1-UE?t=984 <<
TL:Didn't Watch -- Patel lays out a foundation on which he concludes, or more accurately, says he has reason to "suspect" Crowdstrike played a significant role in the Alfa Bank Hoax. Some of the basis for this is material that has not been released, so he can't talk about it, but he notes that he hopes the Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack" is made public so everyone can see what he knows about. He mentions a source who has seen some of the Crowdstrike reports on the DNC "hack," and that source told him the impression he got was that Crowdstrike put lots of effort into selling the attribution for a hack of the DNC on the Russians, when they had very little to back it up.
He does a bit of dancing, since he can't discuss things that are still being held back, but he does make it clear one thing he suspects is that Crowdstrike may have played a role in helping to fabricate the DNS data in the Alfa Bank Hoax.
This is fascinating to me, since I opined the same suspicion about Crowdstrike involvement in the Alfa Bank Hoax a few weeks ago. Patel, however, has much more information to go on that I do, so his "suspicion" carries much more significance than mine does.
Another side story he makes clear is that anything Durham is stating as a "possibility" in the Sussmann indictment is something he already can prove, otherwise he would never have put it in the indictment in the first place. So when Durham's indictment of Sussmann intimates the possibility that some or most of the DNS data could be fabricated or misrepresented intentionally, Patel says you can take it to the bank that Durham can PROVE what he's intimating.
Lots of other interesting details you do not typically hear about in the entire interview.
My understanding is that Crowdstrike was basically told by Sussmann to quickly come up with the Russian hacking narrative. Of course that makes them part of the conspiracy.
"Kash," not "Cash."
A teaser from Sergei Millian:
>> https://twitter.com/SergeiMillian/status/1454070573269721090 <<
If true, it's the sort of thing we've been waiting for.
Wish he spilled a few more beans so we know who he's referring to.
A guess: Steele and Danchenko, perhaps among others, since they both lied about him and claimed he was both involved in The Collusion, and was a sub-source for some of the crap Danchenko shoveled to Steele for his Dossier.
It must have to do with the Fusion GPS angle--that was his involvement.
And that suggests that Glenn Simpson might be #3 on Sergie's list!
Which would be sweet.
Paul Sperry article link:
>> https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/10/28/clinton_campaign_spread_bogus_alfa_bank_story_obama_admin-wide_to_press_trump-russia_probe_800927.html <<
I didn't notice much new in the article, mostly a rehash of what we've seen in a variety of different sources, though he does characterize the spreading of the Alfa bank Hoax across the government as a scheme that was far bigger than some may have thought, and continued after the election.
Yes, while we knew that from the indictment it does confirm that the Alfa Bank hoax was far more central to the overall Russia Hoax than was supposed for a long time.
Peter Strzok is on the attack. Or at least active defense.
A remarkable piece from a real slippery character, a jaw dropping amount of self-serving half-truths and unrelated fluff. And the claim that Trump is still a national security threat!
https://www.lawfareblog.com/sussmann-indictment-human-source-handling-and-fbis-declining-fisa-numbers
"Late in the evening of Oct. 6, attorneys for former Department of Justice attorney and former Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann filed a motion for a bill of particulars relating to his indictment by Special Counsel John Durham. The indictment charges Sussmann with one count of making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016, in conjunction with providing allegations that computer systems connected to the Russian Alfa Bank had anomalous contact with an internet domain associated with the Trump Organization.
[Full disclosure, I had a minor role in the events in question, insofar as I transferred the material Sussmann gave to Jim Baker, the FBI’s general counsel at the time, to the personnel who ultimately supervised and looked into the allegations.] "
😁
Podcast on the above
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.apple.com%2Fnl%2Fpodcast%2Fthe-lawfare-podcast%2Fid498897343%3Fl%3Den%26i%3D1000539611879%26fbclid%3DIwAR2nX1o_lzbJCJVj6UkdgZPpIrmHHzSxWnrGdCqxCPJoSYOI3HjEIs0794c&h=AT3v-YXsGpr0zoM76Dz4MJea8heVm_GfBkMAgUP5bDZuDgpq0ekA4xcZjfFW0oFz2z19shEBopcNyjhjSuOMrp289ECakYUbzY0paMwJStZU9ZgcqPzcpxlMlqVVEMc5yAAPnPodMv4
This is a little long in examples but I think (MHO) they carry merit on the current subject...
Durham has been historically great for producing very large case reports on very big and ugly subjects. (Boston) That said he is also great at chewing mountains of evidence down into grand jury protected garbage. For that reason, but not that reason alone I'm still banking on this being a very small speed bump in the end.
I say this in the basis of what we've seen time and time again were multiple cases on bad actors just go by the wayside.
I expected Durham to shift from FBI and CIA focus to 3rd parties, NGOs, etc. It made perfect sense, the institutions are now "the victims". (I'll be damned if I'm cheering that BS no matter who around Sussmann goes down.) Also, I'll note, that's very fine, agency positive narrative creation on Durham's behalf.
That is the larger goal...
I expected Wolfe and Clinesmith to skate off into the sunset when all of the hyped legal analysis said to expect massive production of flipped actors and wide spread results to flow... And they did... With no cooperation. (We would know if they were or did, disclosure is federal law)
I expected the Clinton / Platte River Networks email scandal to fall flat despite very clear public evidence of destruction and coordinated conspiracy plastered all over the internet (plaster by the idiot actors themselves, Reddit, Bleachbit)... and it did.
Sussmann ran the EXACT same conspiracy to mislead in the DNC Russian email hacking case using many of the same actors, agencies, firms and methodologies. They've been doing this stuff for decades now. It's part of their campaign SOP of creating propaganda and using federal agencies to bolster their positions. By they are not the only ones in DC running this game.
All of these things relate back to the same two issues of intent. To create propaganda for the sake of driving fake narratives while protecting those who engage in these acts.
There is a hypocrisy here of the agencies THEMSELVES doing this by leaking to the press in the same way for the same purposes of bolstering their poor claims for everything from narrative control, getting ahead of bad press, or to bolster poorly constructed FISA case evidence. (Sister agencies leaking, Page FISA)
The NIH and CDC are very busy doing this exact same thing with covid at the moment. They are not only in a conspiracy to mislead the public but also the government it's self. (Paul vs Fauci)
All of these things are about power, control and agency self justification.
It's not that I've gotten myself all amped up on TGP articles or insane legal analysis in the past and short circuited. It's just that historically speaking a government and it's agents are not capable of holding anyone accountable on such a hypocrisy.
Lastly, on Durham, he was appointed by Barr and Barr loved his precious insututions (CIA, R Ridge, Massage, and Snowden) and government engrained 3rd party cronyism dearly. There is not a chance in hell the man he entrusted to oversee the spiderweb of criminal acts committed is going to do anything but bury and limit the connections. Especially when he's already creating a narrative to protect them. (Victims)
Big picture, we are talking about dismantling DC's long standing network of top ranking movers and shakers in the propaganda machine .. Does ANYONE honestly believe that's going to happen? I personally don't.
Mark I love your analysis and writing, these subjects are vast and highly important to cover. My variation is, I just don't share the optimism of actual or meaningful results in the accountability aspect.
More from the Sussmann filing:
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCoAw_qX0AQiPkr?format=png&name=900x900 <<
Somebody got immunity!!!!!
AFAIK, they generally don't hand those out unless the witness has something very useful to prosecutors to testify about.
Possibly Baker, since the reference is to "core allegations". We know via Fox that Baker will testify.
But Sussmann's filing indicates the testimony already took place; Baker has not as yet testified, that we know of.
And how would Sussmann's attorney's know what the immunized witness told the GJ? Only the witness themselves can divulge that until it's in an indictment. So did someone with immunity run to Sussmann's lawyers and spill their guts?
Or, who's to say what the witness told Sussmann's attorneys was true? It not like he's under oath, unless they took a sworn depo from him.
If there has been an indictment then it's likely that key witnesses testified before the GJ. In the circs I would expect that that would have included Baker--he's the person the false statement was made to. Since we know that Baker will be a witness, I assume Durham has turned over a witness list, at least as regards this indictment as it stands.
Ahhh; just realized that Baker's listed as a trial witness, not a pending GJ witness. So that makes sense now.
Can we draw any conclusions if Baker is the immunized witness?
Here's another aspect. Baker testified to the GJ under immunity. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is "cooperating". Cf. SWC:
https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1453107991947907076https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1453107991947907076
That's a very brief tweet. Here's what's behind it. A witness can be granted immunity NOT because the witness is cooperative but precisely to COMPEL testimony--if immunity is given, then the witness can't take the 5th for whatever he received immunity for.
However ...
That immunity is likely to be very narrowly circumscribed, and that's what I was getting at when I said Baker may still be in jeopardy otherwise.
It all depends, which is why speculation is futile, given how little info we actually have at this point.
I had not seen SWC tweet on that, but it makes sense.
I would recommend against speculating too much. This is one count in an ongoing case. Baker could also be a witness or even possibly in jeopardy if there is even a CP FISA case. OTOH, he could get consideration for helping there, too. I absolutely recommend against speculation at this point.
Sussmann's new filing, demanding Durham reveal which specific people in the Clinton campaign he is alleged to have coordinated with:
>> https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1452829432427728898 <<
Buried in the filing is "exculpatory" claim that in the taxi ride to and from Sussmann's meeting with FBI's Baker, during which he claimed he was providing the Alfa Bank DNS data/analysis on behalf of no client, despite charging his time for the meeting and prep for it, to Hillary's campign account, he expensed the taxi rides against no client of the firm.
I have two comments:
1) which is the bigger expense? What Sussmann charged to Hillary's campaign to prepare the white papers, coordinate with Joffe and the researchers, FusionGPS, etc., and deliver the DNS garbage to Baker at FBI, or what he expensed for the taxi rides to and from the meeting???? Which is more indicative of who he was working on behalf of at the time?
2) his time charges and his expense report contradict each other, which means he has to be lying on one, the other, or BOTH! Expensing the taxi ride to overhead is a false charge if he's actually working on behalf of specific client(s), because overhead is charged off across all accounts. In DoD contracting, this is big no-no; its charge fraud (because it transfers legitimate charges against one contract and effectively charges them, via overhead, against all contracts. So his defense basically implies that he's a liar on either his time charges or his expense account, or both!
Pretty desperate defense, it would seem, to stipulate your client is a liar.
I made a tongue in cheek tweet that the taxi charges to overhead
are in fact illegal contributions in kind to the Hillary 2016 campaign
since the meeting itself and its prep were charged to the campaign.
2x $20!!
Since Hillary spent $768 million per OpenSecrets.org
maybe the FEC won't investigate.
Another thought: if, arguendo, Sussmann were not working on behalf of any client when he worked on the Alfa Bank stuff, then he cannot claim attorney-client privilege exist to protect his communications related to that topic, because by his own admission, there is no client whose privilege is being protected!!!!!!
Going a step further, if there is no client on whose behalf the Alfa bank work was being done by Sussmann, then it also logically follows that there can be no "work-product privilege" between a Perkin Coie contractor and Sussmann for work done by the contractor in relation to the Alfa Bank Hoax!
IF Durham does not already have every document and record PC has in relation to Sussmann and the Alfa bank Hoax, I would expect Durham's prosecutors to obtain a subpoena from the GJ demanding EVERYTHING, and when PC argues privilege or work product, shove Sussmann's filing in the judge's face, and point out Sussmann has admitted in filings to the court he had no client, thus no client privilege, nor work product privilege, to protect! KA-BOOM!
Looks like Sussmann's attorneys have been naughty:
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1452788370589904896 <<
They apparently divulged the Durham DC office location and three phone numbers in their proposed order re: Bill of Particulars.
One wonders if that was their real purpose in filing a motion that will almost surely not be granted.
That is bad behavior and probably won't impress the judge that the case ultimately winds up in front of. It's probably not a smart thing to do, sacrificing good will. Judges probably aren't going to rule in a biased manner because they know an attorney is a jerk, but they won't be disposed to do any favors, either.
Does any administrative significance attach to the address used?
Are they trying to establish preemptively a WDC address?
Or just have the office address leased so it can be monitored by allies, perhaps distract some of Durham's folks?
I can't think of any particular significance beyond the fact that DC is central to the investigation. However it needn't be central to any prosecution.
As Winston Churchill stated after a major victory at El Alamein in North Africa "This is not the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning".
The stunning part is that the entire Alfa Bank / Russiagate bs is the weakest reed of all the allegations.
If they have this much on Sussman hawking the DNS fabrications and the white paper , good grief, what must they have on the FISAs, Carter Page, Papadopolus, Flynn, and the Steele idiocy?
One question - the DNI said this was all done initially to cover up Hillary’s server felonies. Does that open a line of inquiry there?
There are multiple lines of inquiry. Off the top of my head, I would be most interested to see whether Durham could tie the Alfa Bank players together with the Carter Page FISA players, as well as with GP.
The Alfa Bank-researching DNS contractors don't seem to be the same that had access to the NSA WHOIS lookups misused at by FBI contractor. AFAIK we still don't know who that was.
I had assumed some employees of a FBI HUMINT contractor, not some bunch of internet traffic analyst dweebs. The sheer nonchalance demonstrated in the emails - hey! let's just make this shit up!! even though anyone that knows what we know will know it's bs - is chilling. Putting a few of them in the pen should provide a valuable lesson for others.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/701630/fisa-court-chided-fbi-sharing-nsa-data-americans-outside-contractors
And Dan Jones, who, after the election, and at FusionGPS's behest, generated the 600 page report he "gave" to the Senate Committee, trying to resuscitate the Alfa Bank/Trump "Morse Code by DNS" madness.
Steele also played a role, generating a memo in the Dossier claiming he had sources for the sale Alfa Bank nonsense, when in reality he heard about it from FusionGPS! To the extent he acted in furtherance of that conspiracy, he, too, could be a co-conspirator.
replace "sale" with "same" ....
Won't such a prosecution bring Bull Durham in direct conflict with the Obama Administration players Brennan, Comey, Rice, Yates et al (which means the Biden Administration)? After all didn't John Brennan advise Obama that it was all a Hillary Clinton dirty trick? What they're going to claim the US government was tricked into a Russia investigation, by Michael Sussmann?
At a minimum, most of these people are potential witnesses. Depending on facts, if they did anything that could be construed to advance the conspiracy--even a neutral/lawful action--they could be drawn in as subjects of prosecution.
Perhaps Durham would be wise to not go after those people until he has demonstrated to the public that serious crimes were being committed by sucessful prosecutions or plea agreements with lower level conspirators attesting to the conspiracy and the roles of higher-ups. Then, shutting Durham down would be politically untenable, or so I hope.
Basically leave the "Biggest Fish" for last.
Crap rolls downhill, prosecutions tend to work their way up.
Lower level guys get plea bargains
for providing info on the major players above them.
If their bosses are indicted, I guess the best bets of lower level guys' nailed by evidence are pleading out to save the govt time and effort of trial, which tends to engender some 'good will' and a lower level charge than possible,
a different thing entirely from becoming a cooperating witness whose ultimate charge is dependent on cooperating fully and over time.
I can't imagine Hillary putting anything in writing - she's surrounded by lawyer / advisors.
Donna Brazile and John Podesta provide the firebreak against anything illegal, maybe even the hapless Jake Sullivan. All lawyers. The Dems perfected this - claiming everything is client - attorney privilege.
Donna in particular would look good in orange.