This afternoon (April 6), PJ Media published an article titled "Durham Filings Reveal Timeline of Conspiracy to Frame Trump", written by Matt Margolis.
.... it started the very same day that James Comey’s FBI cleared Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing for storing classified information on her private email server. On that day, July 5, 2016, Christopher Steele delivered the first version of his infamous dossier on Trump. The FBI field office didn’t act on it right away, but Clinton operatives and lawyers were already snooping around for more “evidence” of collusion, namely internet domain name service logs tying Trump to the Kremlin via secret back channels with Alfa Bank.
By the end of the month [July 2016], CIA Director John Brennan had briefed Barack Obama about Hillary Clinton’s “personally approved” plan “from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services” in the election. Simultaneously, the plan would distract the public from her email scandal.
However, the scheme to undermine Trump wasn’t going as fast as Clinton’s operatives would have hoped, so Steele traveled to Washington to relay his research to Bruce Ohr, a senior official at the Department of Justice. This information was taken directly to top brass at FBI headquarters, and Steele was later made a confidential informant. The FBI formally opened its investigation into Trump/Russia collusion on July 31, 2016.
The CIA knew that Hillary Clinton had personally approved the plan to vilify Trump, and informed FBI Director James Comey and others about it. Days later, Sussmann brought the Alfa Bank allegations to the FBI. ....
According to The New York Times today (April 6), Sussman's lawyers intend to argue that Sussman and Joffe had a conversation (before Sussman talked to Baker) agreeing between the two of them that Sussman was informing Baker on behalf of Joffe, not on behalf of the DNC.
Joffe would confirm that he had such a conversation with Sussman, but Joffe does not want to testify. Joffe intends to plead the Fifth Amendment. Joffe will testify about that conversation only if Durham will give Joffe immunity from prosecution.
The NYT article is titled "New Filing by Counsel Might Strengthen Case in Trump-Era Inquiry", published on Wednesday, April 6, written by Charlie Savage. The article includes the following passage:
.... [Durham's] indictment also contended that he [Sussman] was concealing that he was actually representing two clients at the same time -- the Clinton campaign and a technology executive, Rodney Joffe, who worked with the cyberspecialists who analyzed the Alfa Bank data.
Law firm billing records show that Mr. Sussman listed the campaign for time working on Alfa Bank issues. ...
In court filings, they [Sussman's lawyers] have acknowledged that Mr. Sussman "arranged for this meeting [with James Baker] on behalf of his client," referring to Mr. Joffe. ....
In a separate filing on Monday [April 4] night, the defense asked the judge .... to dismiss the case if Mr. Durham does not grant immunity to Mr. Joffe, so that the technology executive can testify about his interactions with Mr. Sussman regarding the meeting.
In that filing, they said Mr. Joffe would offer "critical exculpatory testimony on behalf of Mr. Sussman," including that the two agreed that he [Sussman] would take the information to the FBI "to help the government, not to benefit Mr. Joffe." They also said that "contrary to the special counsel's theory," Mr. Joffe's work with the data scientists was not connected to the campaign.
.... a letter from Mr. Joffe's lawyer included in the filings said that while Mr. Joffe "can provide exculpatory information concerning the allegations against" Mr. Sussman, Mr. Joffe still faced the possible risk of indictment and would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights not to testify.
Keep in mind that Sussman was working concurrently for 1) the Clinton campaign and 2) Rodney Joffe.
It's becoming apparent that Sussman's lawyers intend to take advantage of this concurrency. Sussman will argue that he was doing x.y,z for Joffe, not for the Clinton campaign. Joffe would confirm that, but only if he will be granted immunity from prosecution.
Durham is aware of that legal tactic. That is why Durham has been trying to compel an untangling of the representations.
The circumstantial evidence is that Seth Rich, a Bernie Sanders supporter and DNC employee, provided a copy of DNC emails to Wikileaks. Rich was murdered for this.
My new blog article:
The FISA Warrants Against Two Russian Banks
https://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-fisa-warrants-against-two-russian.html
This afternoon (April 6), PJ Media published an article titled "Durham Filings Reveal Timeline of Conspiracy to Frame Trump", written by Matt Margolis.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/04/06/durham-filings-reveal-timeline-of-conspiracy-to-frame-trump-n1587463
The key passage:
.... it started the very same day that James Comey’s FBI cleared Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing for storing classified information on her private email server. On that day, July 5, 2016, Christopher Steele delivered the first version of his infamous dossier on Trump. The FBI field office didn’t act on it right away, but Clinton operatives and lawyers were already snooping around for more “evidence” of collusion, namely internet domain name service logs tying Trump to the Kremlin via secret back channels with Alfa Bank.
By the end of the month [July 2016], CIA Director John Brennan had briefed Barack Obama about Hillary Clinton’s “personally approved” plan “from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services” in the election. Simultaneously, the plan would distract the public from her email scandal.
However, the scheme to undermine Trump wasn’t going as fast as Clinton’s operatives would have hoped, so Steele traveled to Washington to relay his research to Bruce Ohr, a senior official at the Department of Justice. This information was taken directly to top brass at FBI headquarters, and Steele was later made a confidential informant. The FBI formally opened its investigation into Trump/Russia collusion on July 31, 2016.
The CIA knew that Hillary Clinton had personally approved the plan to vilify Trump, and informed FBI Director James Comey and others about it. Days later, Sussmann brought the Alfa Bank allegations to the FBI. ....
According to The New York Times today (April 6), Sussman's lawyers intend to argue that Sussman and Joffe had a conversation (before Sussman talked to Baker) agreeing between the two of them that Sussman was informing Baker on behalf of Joffe, not on behalf of the DNC.
Joffe would confirm that he had such a conversation with Sussman, but Joffe does not want to testify. Joffe intends to plead the Fifth Amendment. Joffe will testify about that conversation only if Durham will give Joffe immunity from prosecution.
@Mike; who's billing did Sussman (Perkins Coie) charge the cost too?
The NYT article is titled "New Filing by Counsel Might Strengthen Case in Trump-Era Inquiry", published on Wednesday, April 6, written by Charlie Savage. The article includes the following passage:
.... [Durham's] indictment also contended that he [Sussman] was concealing that he was actually representing two clients at the same time -- the Clinton campaign and a technology executive, Rodney Joffe, who worked with the cyberspecialists who analyzed the Alfa Bank data.
Law firm billing records show that Mr. Sussman listed the campaign for time working on Alfa Bank issues. ...
In court filings, they [Sussman's lawyers] have acknowledged that Mr. Sussman "arranged for this meeting [with James Baker] on behalf of his client," referring to Mr. Joffe. ....
In a separate filing on Monday [April 4] night, the defense asked the judge .... to dismiss the case if Mr. Durham does not grant immunity to Mr. Joffe, so that the technology executive can testify about his interactions with Mr. Sussman regarding the meeting.
In that filing, they said Mr. Joffe would offer "critical exculpatory testimony on behalf of Mr. Sussman," including that the two agreed that he [Sussman] would take the information to the FBI "to help the government, not to benefit Mr. Joffe." They also said that "contrary to the special counsel's theory," Mr. Joffe's work with the data scientists was not connected to the campaign.
.... a letter from Mr. Joffe's lawyer included in the filings said that while Mr. Joffe "can provide exculpatory information concerning the allegations against" Mr. Sussman, Mr. Joffe still faced the possible risk of indictment and would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights not to testify.
The following phrase is incorrect:
... not on behalf of the DNC.
That should be:
... not on behalf of Perkins Coie (i.e. on behalf of the Clinton campaign).
Keep in mind that Sussman was working concurrently for 1) the Clinton campaign and 2) Rodney Joffe.
It's becoming apparent that Sussman's lawyers intend to take advantage of this concurrency. Sussman will argue that he was doing x.y,z for Joffe, not for the Clinton campaign. Joffe would confirm that, but only if he will be granted immunity from prosecution.
Durham is aware of that legal tactic. That is why Durham has been trying to compel an untangling of the representations.
The circumstantial evidence is that Seth Rich, a Bernie Sanders supporter and DNC employee, provided a copy of DNC emails to Wikileaks. Rich was murdered for this.
Which is what the earlier long post was about. People don't want to face up to these questions.
Keeeeerfulll Mark. Next thing you know you'll be questioning the efficacy of elections. :)