I'm reading it now--very insightful. This is all from a prosecutor's point of view, of course. I'll say this, without having read about Elias yet--if Elias is cooperating then he has been targeted. I say that from an investigators standpoint and SWC may be using that lingo in a more technical sense.
BTW, after comparing Margot Cleveland's article and the actual status memo I'm still not convinced that there's anything nefarious going on at OIG. OTOH, I remain puzzled that these steps--looking for Baker's phone(s) and asking for OIG material--didn't take place until 10/21.
OK, I got to the Elias part and SWC is speaking pros speak. He's saying it's against DoJ policy to bring a "target" before a GJ to testify. What I believe he means by "target" here is a person whom the prosecutor has, at least preliminarily, decided he wants to prosecute. If he has made that decision, then bringing the person before the GJ would infringe on his right not to testify against himself. That would mean that Elias was questioned before the GJ as a witness to the wrongdoing of someone else--lots of names come to mind: Simpson, Sussmann, Sullivan, etc. However, if Elias' answers were deceptive or if Elias took the 5th, Durham can go back and make him a "target" in that technical sense. All of this tells us, as I said yesterday, that Durham must be setting his sights high, because I would have thought that Elias would have been a top priority target. At the same time, Durham may also be very careful about what issues Elias was questioned about, to preserve options. Chess game.
I was baffled by that, too. I don't really know--speculate that he used one for internal FBI and one for external calls--to DoJ, WH, CIA. In addition, I'm baffled that Durham only found out about Baker's phones THIS MONTH. It seems to me that obtaining the phone for Baker would have been done at a very early stage--a totally routine step. I mean, they knew he had AT LEAST one government phone. How could that routine part of the investigation not have been done? Sundance sees something nefarious--OIG hiding them from Durham--but I don't see how that's possible/feasible. Nor is there an indication that other FBI phones were missing. Puzzling.
Gambit? It feels like such a data point would have high /crucial impact on persons of interest and targets no longer inside. Maybe for example Comey was confident that Baker's phone was safe, but this little tidbit of information now informs him that the phone (either one ) is no longer safe. How does Comey react to that? Or McCabe, or the disappearing Rod Rosenstein. Hall of mirrors...
Molly Hemmingway has a story out with her take, and she basically takes the same position as Sundance vis-a-vis the OIG, but for another reason--the fact that Sussmann was in communication with the OIG and the OIG failed to disclose that.
Comparing Margot's take to the actual Durham filing, it's difficult to say for sure what went on with OIG. I'm surprised that Durham didn't ask for material from OIG until 10/01. Be that as it may, Durham appears to state that OIG provided the additional material in 12/01 voluntarily--not that Durham found out about it and demanded it. Further, the material that OIG didn't (for whatever reason) turn over was pointed out to Durham by Sussmann's lawyers--implying that Sussmann regarded it a potentially exculpatory in some way. Durham himself refers to this material as "potentially" discoverable. Implying that OIG regarded this material as NOT discoverable.
>"Durham and his team have completed interviews of the following individuals:
..
Current and former employees of the CIA <u>and DARPA.</u>
I'm not sure what it means, but what jumps out at me is that unlike CIA or FBI, DARPA has no operation role; they just work on Nerdly technology.
If Durham is interviewing DARPA employees, it suggests the ALFA Bank Hoax may have involved some DARPA Boffins, either in the set up, or in detecting it after the fact.
>>>>The indictment mentions that in August 2016, “a federal government agency (“Agency-1”) was in the process of finalizing, but had not yet signed, a cybersecurity research contract with University-1 (the “Agency-1 Contract”). This would allow the university’s researchers to receive large quantities of non-public data to “protect national security.”
It was later disclosed that Agency-1 was DARPA. Leads us to ask whether there might be charges relating to the misuse of classified government data from DARPA. <<<<<
Yes, that rings a bell--I read the indictment quite some time ago. It's also possible--I say this without looking at the indictment--that there could be some financial fraud against the government involved, since they were probably receiving government funding as well. But clearly Durham is looking at the misuse of government data in constructing the original Alfa Bank submission to the FBI.
That's the basis on which I hypothesized that Durham has leverage on Joffe's researchers. They could face financial fraud charges for misuse of DARPA data; he can use that threat to flip them in return for going easy on them.
This is why I think Joffe could be toast, and if Joffe goes down, he's taking everyone with him. He's no candidate for the G Gordon Liddy Memorial not ratting out co-conspirators Achievement Award.
Additionally, financial fraud might be easier to prove as a violation than intentional misuse of government data--intent is what can complicate proof. It depends on circs, of course. But if they were doing the work for Joffe while being funded by the government, that would be very straightforward.
SWC's take; start HERE:
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1486388367272992771 <<
Very interesting analysis.
Does not think Elias is a target yet. But he could be cooperating.
Points out Durham's status memo is not in response to any defense filing; ergo, it is for public consumption.
He thinks Durham is showing Sussmann his cards in the hopes of flipping him sooner, rather than later.
I'm reading it now--very insightful. This is all from a prosecutor's point of view, of course. I'll say this, without having read about Elias yet--if Elias is cooperating then he has been targeted. I say that from an investigators standpoint and SWC may be using that lingo in a more technical sense.
BTW, after comparing Margot Cleveland's article and the actual status memo I'm still not convinced that there's anything nefarious going on at OIG. OTOH, I remain puzzled that these steps--looking for Baker's phone(s) and asking for OIG material--didn't take place until 10/21.
OK, I got to the Elias part and SWC is speaking pros speak. He's saying it's against DoJ policy to bring a "target" before a GJ to testify. What I believe he means by "target" here is a person whom the prosecutor has, at least preliminarily, decided he wants to prosecute. If he has made that decision, then bringing the person before the GJ would infringe on his right not to testify against himself. That would mean that Elias was questioned before the GJ as a witness to the wrongdoing of someone else--lots of names come to mind: Simpson, Sussmann, Sullivan, etc. However, if Elias' answers were deceptive or if Elias took the 5th, Durham can go back and make him a "target" in that technical sense. All of this tells us, as I said yesterday, that Durham must be setting his sights high, because I would have thought that Elias would have been a top priority target. At the same time, Durham may also be very careful about what issues Elias was questioned about, to preserve options. Chess game.
Is there any significance to Baker having TWO FBI smart phones?
I was baffled by that, too. I don't really know--speculate that he used one for internal FBI and one for external calls--to DoJ, WH, CIA. In addition, I'm baffled that Durham only found out about Baker's phones THIS MONTH. It seems to me that obtaining the phone for Baker would have been done at a very early stage--a totally routine step. I mean, they knew he had AT LEAST one government phone. How could that routine part of the investigation not have been done? Sundance sees something nefarious--OIG hiding them from Durham--but I don't see how that's possible/feasible. Nor is there an indication that other FBI phones were missing. Puzzling.
Gambit? It feels like such a data point would have high /crucial impact on persons of interest and targets no longer inside. Maybe for example Comey was confident that Baker's phone was safe, but this little tidbit of information now informs him that the phone (either one ) is no longer safe. How does Comey react to that? Or McCabe, or the disappearing Rod Rosenstein. Hall of mirrors...
Molly Hemmingway has a story out with her take, and she basically takes the same position as Sundance vis-a-vis the OIG, but for another reason--the fact that Sussmann was in communication with the OIG and the OIG failed to disclose that.
Comparing Margot's take to the actual Durham filing, it's difficult to say for sure what went on with OIG. I'm surprised that Durham didn't ask for material from OIG until 10/01. Be that as it may, Durham appears to state that OIG provided the additional material in 12/01 voluntarily--not that Durham found out about it and demanded it. Further, the material that OIG didn't (for whatever reason) turn over was pointed out to Durham by Sussmann's lawyers--implying that Sussmann regarded it a potentially exculpatory in some way. Durham himself refers to this material as "potentially" discoverable. Implying that OIG regarded this material as NOT discoverable.
I think you mean Margot Cleveland. Her article is much better than Sundance's.
Yes...thanx for the correction and your take on Ms Cleveland's article.
This caught my eye:
>"Durham and his team have completed interviews of the following individuals:
..
Current and former employees of the CIA <u>and DARPA.</u>
I'm not sure what it means, but what jumps out at me is that unlike CIA or FBI, DARPA has no operation role; they just work on Nerdly technology.
If Durham is interviewing DARPA employees, it suggests the ALFA Bank Hoax may have involved some DARPA Boffins, either in the set up, or in detecting it after the fact.
I hadn't heard that previously.
Interesting point that shows how thoroughly Durham is going into this.
Ahhhhh!
>> https://technofog.substack.com/p/durham-dnc-lawyer-marc-elias-has/comment/4684384 <<
>>>>The indictment mentions that in August 2016, “a federal government agency (“Agency-1”) was in the process of finalizing, but had not yet signed, a cybersecurity research contract with University-1 (the “Agency-1 Contract”). This would allow the university’s researchers to receive large quantities of non-public data to “protect national security.”
It was later disclosed that Agency-1 was DARPA. Leads us to ask whether there might be charges relating to the misuse of classified government data from DARPA. <<<<<
Now it makes sense.
Yes, that rings a bell--I read the indictment quite some time ago. It's also possible--I say this without looking at the indictment--that there could be some financial fraud against the government involved, since they were probably receiving government funding as well. But clearly Durham is looking at the misuse of government data in constructing the original Alfa Bank submission to the FBI.
That's the basis on which I hypothesized that Durham has leverage on Joffe's researchers. They could face financial fraud charges for misuse of DARPA data; he can use that threat to flip them in return for going easy on them.
This is why I think Joffe could be toast, and if Joffe goes down, he's taking everyone with him. He's no candidate for the G Gordon Liddy Memorial not ratting out co-conspirators Achievement Award.
Additionally, financial fraud might be easier to prove as a violation than intentional misuse of government data--intent is what can complicate proof. It depends on circs, of course. But if they were doing the work for Joffe while being funded by the government, that would be very straightforward.
Right. None of those guys have any incentive to be heroes for Hillary.
DARPA folks certainly consult to those "operational" agencies and branches. It's quite a revolving door.
"operational role"
I wonder if this doesn’t all come back to Wikileaks and the murder of Seth.
Rich wasn't murdered until mid July, 2016. I believe the Russia Hoax had been planned well before then. However, it was used opportunistically.
I wonder if the truth about Seth Rich's death will ever come out?
One account I read said he was lucid in the hospital, but nobody was allowed to talk to him and he was not given the care he needed to survive.
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/05/surgery-resident-claims-seth-rich-was-kept-from-proper-care-while-in-the-hospital-by-leo/
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/seth-rich-public-incident-report-actual-
document-answers-my-questions-except-one/
And then the FBI played dumb for years about any information about Seth Rich, and is only slowly producing the documents.
https://www.newsmax.com/us/sethrich-investigation-death-fbi/2021/04/25/id/1018922/
And now the FBI has tens of thousands of documents mentioning Seth Rich?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-has-tens-of-thousands-of-pages-mentioning-seth-rich_3613282.html
I'm done letting people bait me--for tonight.