Left out of Turley's analysis: the fact that while Sullivan was a high level foreign policy advisor to Hillary's campaign, he was also National Security Advisor to then VP Joe Biden.
If Joe Biden was included in the briefing to Obama by Brennan in late July 2016 that Russian Intelligence was of the belief that Hillary approved a plan -- likely proposed by Sullivan -- to smear Trump with hoax allegations he was colluding with Russia, in order to deflect attention from Hillary's private email server scandal, then it will be hard for Sullivan to claim he knew nothing about it, or what Perkins Coie's lawyers roles were in regard to the hoaxes being perpetrated in the Summer and Fall of 2016, and be believed.
Unfortunately, not much new. Turley really only considers past testimony by Sullivan, but Durham has emails that could blow all Sullivan's weasel words out of the water.
>> "This brings us back to Durham’s calendar. Sullivan reportedly gave his series of denials to Congress in December 2017. The statute of limitations for lying to Congress is five years, which means that Sullivan still would be within range for Durham if the special counsel does not buy Sullivan’s denials." <<
That means the SoL doesn't run out until after Dec 2022 at the earliest, if Sullivan lied to Congress, and it is considered an act in furtherance of the conspiracy of which he was enmeshed with Sussmann and the rest.
I don't think Durham is actually much worried about the SoL. The Sussmann indictment, at least IMO, had more to do with the end of the fiscal year, to head of defunding. All the weasel word denials that Sullivan gave to Congress was done under the assumption that there wouldn't be a SC for Hillary--after all, Mueller was already supposed to be burying all that. Then came Durham. Now Durham will almost certainly have communications between the campaign lawyers and Sullivan that will give the lie to his testimony to Congress. For just one example, his claim that he didn't have any idea what role Elias had.
One thing is for sure: Durham didn't reference Sullivan in the Sussmann Indictment to meet a word or page count minimum. His role re: Alfa Bank Hoax is there for a substantive reason.
Danchencko's phony US employer -- who laundered payments from Orbis to pay Danchenko as the PSS of the Steele Dossier -- was tweeting away in Feb 2017 helping promote the Russia Collusion Hoax.
If Danchencko didn't do any work for this guy, then the payments he made to Danchencko, from funds he received from Steele, are arguably a form of money laundering.
I wonder if Durham twisted this guy's arm early on, and he sang like a canary. How much did he know about what his faux employee was really doing?
Going a step further, if Danchenko's make-believe employer is guilty of money laundering, doesn't that also imply that Christopher Steele is likewise guilty of violating US money maundering laws? (In fact, the employer, Steele, AND Danchencko were all engaged in a conspiracy to break US money laundering laws.)
Ergo, that gives Durham leverage on Steele, whom he could charge, extradite, and prosecute, unless he cooperates.
Leverage on Steele helps Durham nail Sussmann, Elias, Simpson, and possibly Dan Jones and key officials in Hillary's campaign.
It's been clear for a long time that Steele is in legal jeopardy--as I remarked last week, there's a reason why Durham's first move after being appointed was to travel the world, including to London. Recall the story about British sources saying the Barr and Durham at that time seemed intent on taking apart the entire USIC.
The difficulty with Steele, of course, is it appears certain that he retained connections to MI6. We discussed some of that with regard to a lengthy article in the Telegraph. That means Steele becomes an intel and diplomatic problem between the two countries, not just a purely legal problem. To use him there will need to be some deal between the US and the UK, which leads to problems re limiting his testimony at a trial. All that can probably be worked out--and maybe has been already. Some of those problems can be obviated to some extent, perhaps, by getting cooperation from others at Fusion GPS and possibly the FBI.
DOJ just released a "partial" transcript of Glenn Simpson, plus what appear to be someone's hand-written notes.
One speculation is Durham no longer needs to hide Simpson's interview from others, perhaps because he's about to drop indictments that will lay out what is in the interview/documents. The missing parts of the interview could deal with issues he's not ready to charge someone over, so it's still being held back.
3 evaluating the credibility of the information in
4 the memoranda that you were being provided by
Page 279
5 Mr. Steele and, by way of summary, you talked about
6 your belief that he was credible and that you had
7 worked with him before and the information he had
8 provided you had been reliable in the past. Did
9 you take any steps to try to assess the credibility
10 of his sources, his unnamed sources in the material
11 that he was providing to you?
12 MR. SIMPSON: Yes, but I'm not going to get
13 into sourcing information.
14 MR. FOSTER: So without getting into naming
15 the sources or anything like that, what steps did
16 you take to try to verify their credibility?
17 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to decline to answer
18 that.
MR. FOSTER: Why?19
20 MR. LEVY: It's a voluntary interview, and in
21 addition to that he wants to be very careful to
22 protect his sources. Somebody's already been
23 killed as a result of the publication of this
24 dossier and no harm should come to anybody related
25 to this honest work.
Glenn Simpson August 22, 2017
Washington, DC
Page 280
1 MR. FOSTER: I'm not asking him to identify
2 the sources. I'm just asking what steps he took to
3 try to verify or validate the information.
4 MR. LEVY: He's given you --
5 MR. FOSTER: If he can answer generally
6 without identifying the sources, I'd ask him to
7 answer.
8 MR. LEVY: He's given you over nine hours of
9 information and he's going to decline to answer
10 this one question.
11
12
MR. FOSTER: And several others.
MR. LEVY: Not many. <<
Anytime Simpson was asked anything related to Steele's sources, including any activity toward vetting them and the accuracy of their information, he and his attorneys go apesh*t refusing to to respond, even when the question has nothing to do with revealing subsource identities.
It could also be informative to compare and contrast Simpson's answers in the deposition and what is stated about what FusionGPS knew about Joffe's crew's DNS data, and when they knew it.
Hard to say, but I'm wondering whether they might be Lisa Page. Twice a reference to "Pete"; also, references to Andy and that he didn't consult with note writer--Page was his lawyer. Someone will find out.
I was just looking at those. That's not a bad guess--those are clearly internal FBI notes, i.e., written by an FBI official. Also at a pretty high level. The relevance must be to compare those notes to elements within Simpson's responses. I'm pretty sure, however, that Durham probably has digital evidence that Simpson knew far more than he admitted to in the interview.
What I mean is, the notes, for example, refer to discussions between Comey and McCabe. Who else could be privy to that--except maybe Baker? I'm sure we'll be hearing more. For now I think the real key may be in the notes, rather than Simpson's dissimulations per se. Knowing what was going on at the top of the FBI.
p 303-305 cover Simpson's answers about what he knew about the Alfa Bank issue. He does a Sgt. Schultz routine, "we didn't generate that info, some journos asked us about it, some people gave us some data, we didn't know what it meant."
I'm guessing Durham has evidence Simpson knew much more than he admitted in his interview.
Will we see an indictment later today? I sure hope so.
Durham hinted broadly in the Sussmann indictment that he suspects that some of the data in the ‘dossier’ that Sussmann presented to the FBI’s Baker was, in fact, “faked or forged.”
Actually, that suspicion has been around for some time, but the published evidence has not received the attention it deserves.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, on behalf of Alfa-Bank, engaged Ankura Consulting Group to investigate and review the Trump-Russian “secret” server accusation. In April 2020, Ankura published a 41 page report entitled “Covert Channel Allegation: New Data Analysis Results”. Not surprisingly, Ankura, after their analysis, concurred with the FBI that there were NO “covert cyber links between Alfa-Bank and the Trump Organization”.
However, what is more interesting are the results in Appendix B: DNS Testing for External Query Activity (DNS Forgery), pp. 39-41. The key point is stated in the Executive Summary (p. 4): “Additionally, CTAPT’s research and analysis demonstrate it is possible – indeed likely – that threat actors may have conducted some inauthentic DNS [Domain Name System] activity to force a “connection” between Alfa-Bank and the Trump Organization, only to then later “discover” the connection.” I will just add a sentence from the Introduction (p.3) that deals directly with that statement: “If true, this would constitute a potential violation of various US federal laws.” Unless, of course, you are Hilary Clinton, in which case it is OK to screw the system.
I added that last sentence. Ankura did not obtain direct proof of DNA forgery (or, at least, it has not been published), but they did lay out exactly how it could have been done. Interesting.
Mark, great job as usual and please keep up the good work.
Soon enough the discussion will turn to "which does the Regime think is more damaging - 1) letting Durham run, 2) shutting him down, or 3) kneecapping him by limiting the additional critical evidence that goes public and letting the targets and the indicted know that the Regime DOJ will carry out any prosecutions in ways that strongly favor acquittals and/or just shielding the malfeasors by any of various backroom machinations available to a DOJ and a regime this corrupt?"
My early bet's on some form or another of the kneecap route, but since I'm utterly unqualified to speculate on just how doable or not this might be, maybe others in the know could comment as to whether the Regime DOJ has it in its power to carry out such a kneecap operation, including but not limited to effectively gagging Durham and appointing hack prosecutors who understand the game is to manufacture failed prosecutions.
Regardless, I'll at least enjoy the ride while it lasts. In these dark times, every little bit that gets exposed to the public is a great big plus. And if a good chunk of the story gets put together and made public, then even if things beyond that do get kneecapped, that will be a lot more material to work with than what we in the corruption-hating sector of the voting public have currently.
The cricial piece in all of this to me is whether Durham either gets shut down (blocked/ obstructed) or it all evaporates without meaningful consequences. My working theory up to now is that DC is so hopelessly corrupt that no, real prosecution of any of the Criminals can ever occur. If Durham is for real and his investigation is for real and, most importantly, if significant Criminals are actually prosecuted *and* get real punishment, then i will have to abandon my Total Corruption Theory(tm). In which case i will happily eat Thanksgiving Crow.
If Durham really is on this trail being described, they will take the hit and simply shut it down. The media is on their side, and it serves the additional purpose of being a boot in the face to half the country.
The media radio silence over the Covid mandate firings in healthcare, fire, and police, people who are usually heroes, astonishes me. Not to mention natural immunity.
So why is Durham being allowed to continue?
Perhaps if his investigation is shut down, some stuff is automatically declassified? There is some sword of Damocles, which is allowing his investigation to continue, we just don’t see it.
I have no good argument against what you say, Yancey. It’s this sort of thing that’s had me long convinced that the only game that truly matters for now is whether elections will be rigged or not, including the “legal” rigging of no voter ID, ballot harvesting, universal vote by mail, etc. The boot will only work if the avalanche of votes against it are not enough to overpower the fraud.
And the only game that matters in that is breaking up the cabal's coalition of Dem left progressive classical union woke identity media corporate academia IC. Tall task? Maybe yes,maybe no. Maybe the coalition is super fragile by nature and the cracks are widening. Look at what they jealously protect. Look at the massive effort at narrative control, the thoughtful steps in a grand plan or the desperate measures of coalition securing?
I have long believed the computer forensic evidence supporting the narrative was fabricated right from the start. I think these people, at first, didn't expect Trump to win in 2016, so weren't all that worried about breaking the law.
Sperry's article made it easy for the layperson to understand how this part of the scheme was set up and unfolded. But who knew that Joffe would use personnel employed by government contracts to do the dirty work? The Georgia Tech link was a complete surprise.
Looking at the bigger picture - beyond Durham's mission - is how the forthcoming (is that wishful thinking?) plea deals and indictments will affect the democrat brand heading into the mid-terms. I just don't see Durham marking time again because of an election before preferring charges or announcing plea agreements after the Sussman indictment.
My guess is the guidance depends on whom is in office, and being investigated.
If it’s a Democrat, such as Hillary Clinton that bears grudges, there is one set of rules.
And there is a special set of rules for Hunter Biden, Weiners laptop, and Seth Rich’s investigation.
For Republicans, another standard.
The lack of any consequences for the prosecutors for what was done to Ted Steven’s is troubling. As what the FBI and Doj did to Trump. And the foreign intel services.
The other non fbi and doj actors I have a bit more hope with Durham, but we will see what the Doj under Garland allows.
Assange seems to be treated as a Republican, where all means fair and foul are permitted.
I'm not certain, but my impression was it covered more than just POTUS (Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, who was tried and convicted just before facing reelection cost him his seat, despite later being exonerated by the courts due to prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence, was one of the impetii for this DOJ "guideline.") As such, I further understand, it does not have to be followed in all circumstances.
Don't forget the cyber-researchers not only are facing massive legal bills to avoid Durham putting them in jail, but also they have been subpoenaed by Alfa Bank in their civil suit against Fusion GPS for defamation. And we know DARPA is "cooperating" with FBI/DOJ relative to questions about whether what the researchers did with non-public data intended for the DARPA research contract constituted a crime, and whether they charged the time they spent digging for non-existent dirt on Trump in that data was charged to the DARPA contract after the election, which would be a form of financial fraud. Thus, unless they cut deals or have they legal bills paid for by "others," they will go broke triply fast.
I think not, if it is set up properly. To be income it has to be money you are free to save. invest, or expend as you wish, IIRC. If the money goes directly to the attorneys to cover their fees, the client has no discretion over how he money is being used. Ergo, it wasn't his money, and hence not his income. The attorneys (or the law firm) would pay income tax on it, as usual.
New George Parry article #5 in his series came out around midnight:
>> https://spectator.org/john-durham-and-the-amazing-disappearing-dnc-hack/ <<
Yeah, I've been spending most of the afternoon on that.
FLASH: Mike Flynn on Tucker in minutes to discuss what was done to him.
Teaser for Tucker's subscription show in which he interviews Flynn for more than an hour.
Interesting tid-bit: Flynn brings up Sussmann indictment and hints Durham may be looking into aspect of Flynn's persecution.
Unclear if that's just wishful thinking on his part, or he's actually aware of where things are going.
Some new: Turley analyzes if Durham is going after Sullivan ...
>>https://jonathanturley.org/2021/10/11/is-durham-circling-jake-sullivan-the-special-counsel-may-not-be-done-with-national-security-adviser/ <<
Left out of Turley's analysis: the fact that while Sullivan was a high level foreign policy advisor to Hillary's campaign, he was also National Security Advisor to then VP Joe Biden.
If Joe Biden was included in the briefing to Obama by Brennan in late July 2016 that Russian Intelligence was of the belief that Hillary approved a plan -- likely proposed by Sullivan -- to smear Trump with hoax allegations he was colluding with Russia, in order to deflect attention from Hillary's private email server scandal, then it will be hard for Sullivan to claim he knew nothing about it, or what Perkins Coie's lawyers roles were in regard to the hoaxes being perpetrated in the Summer and Fall of 2016, and be believed.
Unfortunately, not much new. Turley really only considers past testimony by Sullivan, but Durham has emails that could blow all Sullivan's weasel words out of the water.
This part is engouraging:
>> "This brings us back to Durham’s calendar. Sullivan reportedly gave his series of denials to Congress in December 2017. The statute of limitations for lying to Congress is five years, which means that Sullivan still would be within range for Durham if the special counsel does not buy Sullivan’s denials." <<
That means the SoL doesn't run out until after Dec 2022 at the earliest, if Sullivan lied to Congress, and it is considered an act in furtherance of the conspiracy of which he was enmeshed with Sussmann and the rest.
I don't think Durham is actually much worried about the SoL. The Sussmann indictment, at least IMO, had more to do with the end of the fiscal year, to head of defunding. All the weasel word denials that Sullivan gave to Congress was done under the assumption that there wouldn't be a SC for Hillary--after all, Mueller was already supposed to be burying all that. Then came Durham. Now Durham will almost certainly have communications between the campaign lawyers and Sullivan that will give the lie to his testimony to Congress. For just one example, his claim that he didn't have any idea what role Elias had.
One thing is for sure: Durham didn't reference Sullivan in the Sussmann Indictment to meet a word or page count minimum. His role re: Alfa Bank Hoax is there for a substantive reason.
While we wait for more shoes to drop, this is interesting:
>> https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1446704051891081218 <<
Danchencko's phony US employer -- who laundered payments from Orbis to pay Danchenko as the PSS of the Steele Dossier -- was tweeting away in Feb 2017 helping promote the Russia Collusion Hoax.
If Danchencko didn't do any work for this guy, then the payments he made to Danchencko, from funds he received from Steele, are arguably a form of money laundering.
I wonder if Durham twisted this guy's arm early on, and he sang like a canary. How much did he know about what his faux employee was really doing?
I was as impatient as anyone else, but if Durham is digging this deep it'll be worth the wait.
Agree on it being worth the wait.
Going a step further, if Danchenko's make-believe employer is guilty of money laundering, doesn't that also imply that Christopher Steele is likewise guilty of violating US money maundering laws? (In fact, the employer, Steele, AND Danchencko were all engaged in a conspiracy to break US money laundering laws.)
Ergo, that gives Durham leverage on Steele, whom he could charge, extradite, and prosecute, unless he cooperates.
Leverage on Steele helps Durham nail Sussmann, Elias, Simpson, and possibly Dan Jones and key officials in Hillary's campaign.
It's been clear for a long time that Steele is in legal jeopardy--as I remarked last week, there's a reason why Durham's first move after being appointed was to travel the world, including to London. Recall the story about British sources saying the Barr and Durham at that time seemed intent on taking apart the entire USIC.
The difficulty with Steele, of course, is it appears certain that he retained connections to MI6. We discussed some of that with regard to a lengthy article in the Telegraph. That means Steele becomes an intel and diplomatic problem between the two countries, not just a purely legal problem. To use him there will need to be some deal between the US and the UK, which leads to problems re limiting his testimony at a trial. All that can probably be worked out--and maybe has been already. Some of those problems can be obviated to some extent, perhaps, by getting cooperation from others at Fusion GPS and possibly the FBI.
Is something "up"?
>> https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-library/foia-processed/general_topics/fusion_gps_09_30_21_interim/download <<
DOJ just released a "partial" transcript of Glenn Simpson, plus what appear to be someone's hand-written notes.
One speculation is Durham no longer needs to hide Simpson's interview from others, perhaps because he's about to drop indictments that will lay out what is in the interview/documents. The missing parts of the interview could deal with issues he's not ready to charge someone over, so it's still being held back.
Any other interpretations?
>> MR. FOSTER: Earlier you talked about
3 evaluating the credibility of the information in
4 the memoranda that you were being provided by
Page 279
5 Mr. Steele and, by way of summary, you talked about
6 your belief that he was credible and that you had
7 worked with him before and the information he had
8 provided you had been reliable in the past. Did
9 you take any steps to try to assess the credibility
10 of his sources, his unnamed sources in the material
11 that he was providing to you?
12 MR. SIMPSON: Yes, but I'm not going to get
13 into sourcing information.
14 MR. FOSTER: So without getting into naming
15 the sources or anything like that, what steps did
16 you take to try to verify their credibility?
17 MR. SIMPSON: I'm going to decline to answer
18 that.
MR. FOSTER: Why?19
20 MR. LEVY: It's a voluntary interview, and in
21 addition to that he wants to be very careful to
22 protect his sources. Somebody's already been
23 killed as a result of the publication of this
24 dossier and no harm should come to anybody related
25 to this honest work.
Glenn Simpson August 22, 2017
Washington, DC
Page 280
1 MR. FOSTER: I'm not asking him to identify
2 the sources. I'm just asking what steps he took to
3 try to verify or validate the information.
4 MR. LEVY: He's given you --
5 MR. FOSTER: If he can answer generally
6 without identifying the sources, I'd ask him to
7 answer.
8 MR. LEVY: He's given you over nine hours of
9 information and he's going to decline to answer
10 this one question.
11
12
MR. FOSTER: And several others.
MR. LEVY: Not many. <<
Anytime Simpson was asked anything related to Steele's sources, including any activity toward vetting them and the accuracy of their information, he and his attorneys go apesh*t refusing to to respond, even when the question has nothing to do with revealing subsource identities.
Very suspicious.
I'd say so.
It could also be informative to compare and contrast Simpson's answers in the deposition and what is stated about what FusionGPS knew about Joffe's crew's DNS data, and when they knew it.
Hand written notes are possibly FBI General Counsel Baker?????
Hard to say, but I'm wondering whether they might be Lisa Page. Twice a reference to "Pete"; also, references to Andy and that he didn't consult with note writer--Page was his lawyer. Someone will find out.
I was just looking at those. That's not a bad guess--those are clearly internal FBI notes, i.e., written by an FBI official. Also at a pretty high level. The relevance must be to compare those notes to elements within Simpson's responses. I'm pretty sure, however, that Durham probably has digital evidence that Simpson knew far more than he admitted to in the interview.
What I mean is, the notes, for example, refer to discussions between Comey and McCabe. Who else could be privy to that--except maybe Baker? I'm sure we'll be hearing more. For now I think the real key may be in the notes, rather than Simpson's dissimulations per se. Knowing what was going on at the top of the FBI.
p 303-305 cover Simpson's answers about what he knew about the Alfa Bank issue. He does a Sgt. Schultz routine, "we didn't generate that info, some journos asked us about it, some people gave us some data, we didn't know what it meant."
I'm guessing Durham has evidence Simpson knew much more than he admitted in his interview.
Will we see an indictment later today? I sure hope so.
Mark, you wrote:
Durham hinted broadly in the Sussmann indictment that he suspects that some of the data in the ‘dossier’ that Sussmann presented to the FBI’s Baker was, in fact, “faked or forged.”
Actually, that suspicion has been around for some time, but the published evidence has not received the attention it deserves.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, on behalf of Alfa-Bank, engaged Ankura Consulting Group to investigate and review the Trump-Russian “secret” server accusation. In April 2020, Ankura published a 41 page report entitled “Covert Channel Allegation: New Data Analysis Results”. Not surprisingly, Ankura, after their analysis, concurred with the FBI that there were NO “covert cyber links between Alfa-Bank and the Trump Organization”.
However, what is more interesting are the results in Appendix B: DNS Testing for External Query Activity (DNS Forgery), pp. 39-41. The key point is stated in the Executive Summary (p. 4): “Additionally, CTAPT’s research and analysis demonstrate it is possible – indeed likely – that threat actors may have conducted some inauthentic DNS [Domain Name System] activity to force a “connection” between Alfa-Bank and the Trump Organization, only to then later “discover” the connection.” I will just add a sentence from the Introduction (p.3) that deals directly with that statement: “If true, this would constitute a potential violation of various US federal laws.” Unless, of course, you are Hilary Clinton, in which case it is OK to screw the system.
I added that last sentence. Ankura did not obtain direct proof of DNA forgery (or, at least, it has not been published), but they did lay out exactly how it could have been done. Interesting.
Mark, great job as usual and please keep up the good work.
Neil in SD (and still unvaxx’ed!)
Thanks, Neil.
Soon enough the discussion will turn to "which does the Regime think is more damaging - 1) letting Durham run, 2) shutting him down, or 3) kneecapping him by limiting the additional critical evidence that goes public and letting the targets and the indicted know that the Regime DOJ will carry out any prosecutions in ways that strongly favor acquittals and/or just shielding the malfeasors by any of various backroom machinations available to a DOJ and a regime this corrupt?"
My early bet's on some form or another of the kneecap route, but since I'm utterly unqualified to speculate on just how doable or not this might be, maybe others in the know could comment as to whether the Regime DOJ has it in its power to carry out such a kneecap operation, including but not limited to effectively gagging Durham and appointing hack prosecutors who understand the game is to manufacture failed prosecutions.
Regardless, I'll at least enjoy the ride while it lasts. In these dark times, every little bit that gets exposed to the public is a great big plus. And if a good chunk of the story gets put together and made public, then even if things beyond that do get kneecapped, that will be a lot more material to work with than what we in the corruption-hating sector of the voting public have currently.
The cricial piece in all of this to me is whether Durham either gets shut down (blocked/ obstructed) or it all evaporates without meaningful consequences. My working theory up to now is that DC is so hopelessly corrupt that no, real prosecution of any of the Criminals can ever occur. If Durham is for real and his investigation is for real and, most importantly, if significant Criminals are actually prosecuted *and* get real punishment, then i will have to abandon my Total Corruption Theory(tm). In which case i will happily eat Thanksgiving Crow.
If Durham really is on this trail being described, they will take the hit and simply shut it down. The media is on their side, and it serves the additional purpose of being a boot in the face to half the country.
My guess is these meetings already happened.
The media radio silence over the Covid mandate firings in healthcare, fire, and police, people who are usually heroes, astonishes me. Not to mention natural immunity.
So why is Durham being allowed to continue?
Perhaps if his investigation is shut down, some stuff is automatically declassified? There is some sword of Damocles, which is allowing his investigation to continue, we just don’t see it.
I have no good argument against what you say, Yancey. It’s this sort of thing that’s had me long convinced that the only game that truly matters for now is whether elections will be rigged or not, including the “legal” rigging of no voter ID, ballot harvesting, universal vote by mail, etc. The boot will only work if the avalanche of votes against it are not enough to overpower the fraud.
And the only game that matters in that is breaking up the cabal's coalition of Dem left progressive classical union woke identity media corporate academia IC. Tall task? Maybe yes,maybe no. Maybe the coalition is super fragile by nature and the cracks are widening. Look at what they jealously protect. Look at the massive effort at narrative control, the thoughtful steps in a grand plan or the desperate measures of coalition securing?
I have long believed the computer forensic evidence supporting the narrative was fabricated right from the start. I think these people, at first, didn't expect Trump to win in 2016, so weren't all that worried about breaking the law.
Yes. People running an OC or drug conspiracy will take security precautions instead of yakking openly in emails.
Hence the panic among plotters that ensued when he won.
Exactly. The panic spoke and continues to speak volumes.
Sperry's article made it easy for the layperson to understand how this part of the scheme was set up and unfolded. But who knew that Joffe would use personnel employed by government contracts to do the dirty work? The Georgia Tech link was a complete surprise.
Looking at the bigger picture - beyond Durham's mission - is how the forthcoming (is that wishful thinking?) plea deals and indictments will affect the democrat brand heading into the mid-terms. I just don't see Durham marking time again because of an election before preferring charges or announcing plea agreements after the Sussman indictment.
Unless a target is running for office in 2022, there is no reason for Durham to wait until after the election.
I believe that consideration only enters with presidential elections. Correct me if I'm wrong.
My guess is the guidance depends on whom is in office, and being investigated.
If it’s a Democrat, such as Hillary Clinton that bears grudges, there is one set of rules.
And there is a special set of rules for Hunter Biden, Weiners laptop, and Seth Rich’s investigation.
For Republicans, another standard.
The lack of any consequences for the prosecutors for what was done to Ted Steven’s is troubling. As what the FBI and Doj did to Trump. And the foreign intel services.
The other non fbi and doj actors I have a bit more hope with Durham, but we will see what the Doj under Garland allows.
Assange seems to be treated as a Republican, where all means fair and foul are permitted.
Ted Stevens hits a nerve. Justice and awareness are the same but different
I'm not certain, but my impression was it covered more than just POTUS (Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska, who was tried and convicted just before facing reelection cost him his seat, despite later being exonerated by the courts due to prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence, was one of the impetii for this DOJ "guideline.") As such, I further understand, it does not have to be followed in all circumstances.
Don't forget the cyber-researchers not only are facing massive legal bills to avoid Durham putting them in jail, but also they have been subpoenaed by Alfa Bank in their civil suit against Fusion GPS for defamation. And we know DARPA is "cooperating" with FBI/DOJ relative to questions about whether what the researchers did with non-public data intended for the DARPA research contract constituted a crime, and whether they charged the time they spent digging for non-existent dirt on Trump in that data was charged to the DARPA contract after the election, which would be a form of financial fraud. Thus, unless they cut deals or have they legal bills paid for by "others," they will go broke triply fast.
if "others" pay for the accused defendants' attorneys, are those payments taxable income to the defendants per IRC?
I think not, if it is set up properly. To be income it has to be money you are free to save. invest, or expend as you wish, IIRC. If the money goes directly to the attorneys to cover their fees, the client has no discretion over how he money is being used. Ergo, it wasn't his money, and hence not his income. The attorneys (or the law firm) would pay income tax on it, as usual.
Somehow the Aswan Brothers had top tier Lawyers.
As did Blasey Ford.
The Democrats seem to be willing to help out their allies on legal fees. Gop in contrast, as with Flynn, does not.
Why would this be any different?
The key point remains, Dems will almost certainly be willing to help out their allies on legal fees.
Wokesters see everything as a fight to the death, while GOPe uses wet noodles.
"The impact on the jury—or multiple juries—should be devastating," but for the fact that it takes only one Wokester to hang a jury.
I'll damn near bet ranch, that the DS will easily be able to produce at least one such Wokester per jury.
Even worse, the lawyers Flynn got initially seemed to be screwing their client over.
1. The Aswan Bros. had connection who could influence the prosecutor.
2. Blasey-Ford wasn't being prosecuted.
MW wrote: "2. Blasey-Ford wasn't being prosecuted."
... but should have been!
I haven't changed my mind.