Of course, this is hardly a revelation, in that multiple officials of the campaign were clearly fingered in their official campaign capacities in the Sussmann indictment.
It tells us two things (or strongly suggests them): 1) Danchenko wants to cooperate with Durham, and 2) Durham is actively looking at various Clinton Campaign officials as part of the investigation.
I thought a month or so ago that Durham was using this approach of indicting a single defendant on simple 1001 charges that were not directly related to each other (at least at first blush) was a clever mechanism to defeat potential or de facto MDAs -- such as Danchenko using the same law firm as the Clinton Campaign people, so they could share info they glean from interactions with Durham's prosecutors.
By singling out Danchanko and Sussmann, Durham denies the others the ability to form MDAs with them, such that they can't learn what's in Danchenko's proffers, for example, and which they could learn if they had the same lawyers, or lawyers working under a MDA.
And here are the Clinton Campaign lawyers trying to get into a back-door MDA with Danchenko by taking him on as a client. And Durham isn't having it.
We already knew #2 for practical purposes. Re #1 I don't see that. If Danchenko wants to cooperate with Durham all he has to do is dismiss his Clinton lawyers--he never had to take them on in the first place. Nothing is preventing him from taking that step. But he hasn't dismissed them. I also presume Durham communicated with Danchenko's lawyers re the potential conflict before filing this motion, and D's lawyers would have been ethically bound to communicate that issue to Danchenko.
The interest in the motion, from my POV, is the extraordinary lengths the Clinton legal team is willing to go to. That suggests a real sense of an existential threat. Of course, none of that is a big revelation, either. Once we saw that Durham was going after Sussmann all this fell into place.
The BIG QUESTION: does this signify that Danchenko has decided to flip? Does Schamel have other clients whose interests might conflict with Danchenko's if Danchenko flips? If so, that could be the explanation for Schamel's firm having to cease representing Danchenko.
Speculation is that Schamel also represented "Researcher-1" in the DNS data Hoax.
That's consistent with Schamel dropping Danchenko if Danchenko is about to sing lullabies to Durham.
Should wait for confirmation of all of this, but my gut sense is sh*t is about to get very real.
It could work in a number of directions. The lawyers may have decided they can't trust Danchenko. They may have discovered a conflict. They may have disagreed about strategies. Etc. It does seem to be a bit of an unusual development, however, given that Schamel has represented him for quite a while.
Sears previously represented a former employee from the Trump WH, and also represented someone charged by Mueller's Goons.
That's consistent with (but does not prove) Danchenko has flipped.
That said, I think Danchenko flipping was inevitable; why would he fall on his sword to protect various scoundrels who used him. He's no G. Gordon Liddy.
The key point is Sussmann's attorneys are arguing for going to trial in May; Durham apparently is asking for a July trial date. Sussmann's lawyers disparage the amount to time Durham says is required to produce discovery before trial, arguing it can't take six months to produce evidence in a case in which there is a single witness (who is mentioned) to what Sussmann said.
But Durham's argument for a July trial date suggests there is much much more going on in this case than meets the eye in the 1001 charge that was brought against Sussmann, which fits with the often repeated sentiment that Durham will probably upgrade/supersede the charges in this indictment.
Here, in particular, is a specific example, something that no one has paid much attention to so far: Durham, in filings in Sussmann, has stipulated the need to enter into evidence substantial amounts of "Classified" evidence.
But what classified evidence would there be that goes to Sussmann's guilt or innocence regarding what he told Baker about on whose behalf he was acting when he brought the Alfa Bank DNS data to Baker?
GJ testimony isn't normally "classified." Neither are transcripts of wire taps done by US LE in normal criminal investigations.
Classified material is, by definition, material that could cause "damage" to US National Security by unauthorized disclosure.
One good guess would be docs from FBI investigations that somehow relate to this--whether before the election or later at Durham's behest. Hard to say. Durham's not giving anything away.
I almost wonder whether Lisa Page could be the other high ranking OGC official, given that the meeting very possibly involved McCabe. Or maybe Trisha Anderson. The Ass't Director referred to has to be Priestap. All of this shows that Durham has his ducks lined up, and the comments to TF's twitter thread are laughable. His lawyers are doing what they can, but Durham has them outgunned--so it seems to me.
I'm good with Anderson. The reason I considered Page as a possibility as well is because the decision to open on Alfa/Trump might be considered so sensitive that it would require DD McCabe's input--in which case Page would likely be present. Of course, they might all have been in the meeting, but Anderson is the cooperator. I wrote extensively about her, and she sounded put out by being excluded from some of the more sensitive matters.
Two of those employees are obviously CIA. That probably also means classified CIA docs in addition to the FBI docs. I expect that Priestap is one of the FBI witnesses, and that also helps lock Baker in to his GJ testimony--Priestap will testify to what Baker told him after talking with Sussmann, and that will agree with the GJ testimony because Baker will have refreshed his recollection with his own and Priestap's contemporaneous notes.
" ... the need to coordinate with multiple national security agencies on classified matters, and the Government’s intent to file a CIPA Section 4 motion. <<
Multiple "national security" agencies ....
I wondered what was in that briefcase that Grinnell carried into DOJ last year. Maybe we are going to find out.
Hypothetically, if Simpson contacted someone overseas, say in London, for example, after the Collusion Hoax was approved by Hillary, and the person Simpson spoke with happens to also have frequent contact with many "interesting" Russians as part of his business, such that US Intelligence services might be interested in "eaves dropping" on his conversations to pickup useful intelligence "scuttlebutt," and Simpson mentions to him that Sussmann has "dropped" the Alfa Bank Hoax DNS data in the FBI's lap via Baker, and mentioned that Sussmann told Simpson he was careful to pretend he was not acting on behalf of any client when he dropped the DNS data chickenfeed in Baker's lap, would it not follow that someone monitoring Mr B.'s phone conversations (or emails, or encrypted emails) would have a record of the conversation?
There's any number of possibilities. I expect the judge will understand that, too. They don't tend to challenge matters of classification unless the classification is an issue.
Breaking: " It's official: Durham is investigating the Clinton Campaign. "
>> https://technofog.substack.com/p/its-official-durham-is-investigating <<
Based on Durham filings related to Danchenko's new lawyers.
Thanks, I saw Sundance's post re this.
Of course, this is hardly a revelation, in that multiple officials of the campaign were clearly fingered in their official campaign capacities in the Sussmann indictment.
It tells us two things (or strongly suggests them): 1) Danchenko wants to cooperate with Durham, and 2) Durham is actively looking at various Clinton Campaign officials as part of the investigation.
I thought a month or so ago that Durham was using this approach of indicting a single defendant on simple 1001 charges that were not directly related to each other (at least at first blush) was a clever mechanism to defeat potential or de facto MDAs -- such as Danchenko using the same law firm as the Clinton Campaign people, so they could share info they glean from interactions with Durham's prosecutors.
By singling out Danchanko and Sussmann, Durham denies the others the ability to form MDAs with them, such that they can't learn what's in Danchenko's proffers, for example, and which they could learn if they had the same lawyers, or lawyers working under a MDA.
And here are the Clinton Campaign lawyers trying to get into a back-door MDA with Danchenko by taking him on as a client. And Durham isn't having it.
We already knew #2 for practical purposes. Re #1 I don't see that. If Danchenko wants to cooperate with Durham all he has to do is dismiss his Clinton lawyers--he never had to take them on in the first place. Nothing is preventing him from taking that step. But he hasn't dismissed them. I also presume Durham communicated with Danchenko's lawyers re the potential conflict before filing this motion, and D's lawyers would have been ethically bound to communicate that issue to Danchenko.
The interest in the motion, from my POV, is the extraordinary lengths the Clinton legal team is willing to go to. That suggests a real sense of an existential threat. Of course, none of that is a big revelation, either. Once we saw that Durham was going after Sussmann all this fell into place.
Agree about "existential threat" perceived by Clinton Campaign officials. This has "desperation" written all over it.
Possible breaking news:
Danchenko's lawyers, including the one who was friends with Lisa Monaco, have WITHDRAWN from his case.
Danchenko is now represented by a third lawyer, who made his initial appearance in the case about 4 days ago.
The old lawyer, Schamel, was the one he got when the FBI first interviewed him in January 2017, and he lied through his teeth.
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGCRv_eXMAAoorX?format=jpg&name=large <<
The BIG QUESTION: does this signify that Danchenko has decided to flip? Does Schamel have other clients whose interests might conflict with Danchenko's if Danchenko flips? If so, that could be the explanation for Schamel's firm having to cease representing Danchenko.
Speculation is that Schamel also represented "Researcher-1" in the DNS data Hoax.
That's consistent with Schamel dropping Danchenko if Danchenko is about to sing lullabies to Durham.
Should wait for confirmation of all of this, but my gut sense is sh*t is about to get very real.
It could work in a number of directions. The lawyers may have decided they can't trust Danchenko. They may have discovered a conflict. They may have disagreed about strategies. Etc. It does seem to be a bit of an unusual development, however, given that Schamel has represented him for quite a while.
Sears previously represented a former employee from the Trump WH, and also represented someone charged by Mueller's Goons.
That's consistent with (but does not prove) Danchenko has flipped.
That said, I think Danchenko flipping was inevitable; why would he fall on his sword to protect various scoundrels who used him. He's no G. Gordon Liddy.
I agree. A Russian going in front of an American jury these days? I wouldn't like those chances. He could have some interesting stories to tell.
A note to Christopher Steele: avoid strolling in Ft. Marcy Park.
More from the motion to which the 302 was an attached exhibit:
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FF-ME_8X0AI2Vu1?format=png&name=900x900 <<
The key point is Sussmann's attorneys are arguing for going to trial in May; Durham apparently is asking for a July trial date. Sussmann's lawyers disparage the amount to time Durham says is required to produce discovery before trial, arguing it can't take six months to produce evidence in a case in which there is a single witness (who is mentioned) to what Sussmann said.
But Durham's argument for a July trial date suggests there is much much more going on in this case than meets the eye in the 1001 charge that was brought against Sussmann, which fits with the often repeated sentiment that Durham will probably upgrade/supersede the charges in this indictment.
Here, in particular, is a specific example, something that no one has paid much attention to so far: Durham, in filings in Sussmann, has stipulated the need to enter into evidence substantial amounts of "Classified" evidence.
But what classified evidence would there be that goes to Sussmann's guilt or innocence regarding what he told Baker about on whose behalf he was acting when he brought the Alfa Bank DNS data to Baker?
GJ testimony isn't normally "classified." Neither are transcripts of wire taps done by US LE in normal criminal investigations.
Classified material is, by definition, material that could cause "damage" to US National Security by unauthorized disclosure.
see: 40 CFR § 11.4 - Definitions.
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/11.4 <<
So what the Hell is there that fits that definition and is relevant to Sussmann's guilt or innocence?
My guess is there's another shoe (or three?) to drop in this case, before it's over.
One good guess would be docs from FBI investigations that somehow relate to this--whether before the election or later at Durham's behest. Hard to say. Durham's not giving anything away.
Durham's reply:
>> https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1468346145525178369 <<
>>> Records show "five separate government employees support the Indictment's allegations" against Sussmann.
3 interviews w/ Baker prove Sussmann did lie about his "clients" <<<
I almost wonder whether Lisa Page could be the other high ranking OGC official, given that the meeting very possibly involved McCabe. Or maybe Trisha Anderson. The Ass't Director referred to has to be Priestap. All of this shows that Durham has his ducks lined up, and the comments to TF's twitter thread are laughable. His lawyers are doing what they can, but Durham has them outgunned--so it seems to me.
SWC thinks it's Trish Anderson:
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1468408684585709573 <<
I'm good with Anderson. The reason I considered Page as a possibility as well is because the decision to open on Alfa/Trump might be considered so sensitive that it would require DD McCabe's input--in which case Page would likely be present. Of course, they might all have been in the meeting, but Anderson is the cooperator. I wrote extensively about her, and she sounded put out by being excluded from some of the more sensitive matters.
Two of those employees are obviously CIA. That probably also means classified CIA docs in addition to the FBI docs. I expect that Priestap is one of the FBI witnesses, and that also helps lock Baker in to his GJ testimony--Priestap will testify to what Baker told him after talking with Sussmann, and that will agree with the GJ testimony because Baker will have refreshed his recollection with his own and Priestap's contemporaneous notes.
Actual Court Document:
>> https://www.scribd.com/document/545377955/US-v-Sussmann <<
" ... the need to coordinate with multiple national security agencies on classified matters, and the Government’s intent to file a CIPA Section 4 motion. <<
Multiple "national security" agencies ....
I wondered what was in that briefcase that Grinnell carried into DOJ last year. Maybe we are going to find out.
More:
>> https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1468347818049945604 <<
5000 pages of CLASSIFIED discovery so far.
>> https://twitter.com/15poundstogo/status/1468348545090703363 <<
There's clearly much more afoot than just a 1001 charge.
Hypothetically, if Simpson contacted someone overseas, say in London, for example, after the Collusion Hoax was approved by Hillary, and the person Simpson spoke with happens to also have frequent contact with many "interesting" Russians as part of his business, such that US Intelligence services might be interested in "eaves dropping" on his conversations to pickup useful intelligence "scuttlebutt," and Simpson mentions to him that Sussmann has "dropped" the Alfa Bank Hoax DNS data in the FBI's lap via Baker, and mentioned that Sussmann told Simpson he was careful to pretend he was not acting on behalf of any client when he dropped the DNS data chickenfeed in Baker's lap, would it not follow that someone monitoring Mr B.'s phone conversations (or emails, or encrypted emails) would have a record of the conversation?
Just, you know hypothetically?
There's any number of possibilities. I expect the judge will understand that, too. They don't tend to challenge matters of classification unless the classification is an issue.