23 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

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Danchenko's lawyers, including the one who was friends with Lisa Monaco, have WITHDRAWN from his case.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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment