TTT

Hope to see some movement today

Last week, FEC dumped docs re Clinton campaign & DNC's reporting Fusion GPS expenses as "legal expenses." And @DanBackerEsq was right: Docs help Durham's case of no attorney-client priv. in Sussmann case. @FDRLST https://t.co/dQtJ1Tbr8L

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 2, 2022

BREAKING: Durham files supplement based on FEC report. pic.twitter.com/8yA5RoqqdV

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 3, 2022

3/3 Gov't filing was brief but included portions of FEC file that I reported on (and linked to) in my article. pic.twitter.com/wmBhSdTUrk

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 3, 2022

NM.. I posted it above.

So are the documents the release that prompted the Roe leak? or is it something in the Pfizer docs?

I agree but I believe there is more to it as well. They have needed a boost for a long time and supposedly Politico had this since February...when it was released was strategic.

Everything you list would have been possible with the actual opinion was released during the summer.

I don't believe I've ever seen a leaked story/document from SCOTUS, however, you legal historians can confirm.

I doubt we'll ever know who leaked the information, but we all know ethics and laws are rarely acknowledged by Democrats when the ends are the goal.

So it could have been an actual judge, likely Sotomayor, Kagan, or Roberts, or just an intern. However, it's likely the intelligence establishment is spying on SCOTUS, it's judges and interns.

The original decision in Roe was leaked to Time in 1973.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/02/leak-time-magazine-roe-wade/?variant=15bc93f5a1ccbb65

RiskManager93 said:

---

The original decision in Roe was leaked to Time in 1973.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/02/leak-time-magazine-roe-wade/?variant=15bc93f5a1ccbb65

---

First of all, wow! Had no idea.

Secondly, do y'all realize a 1 1/2 weeks from now we'll start the Sussman trial (glory be). Can't wait for that play-by-play.

Can we get one of our own to report from the court room? Nice time of the year to be in DC.

Lastly, is there a good time, or an ideal time, to issue indictments to someone? I'm asking because of the obvious, I'm hoping for more indictments---preferably the entire Dem Party!!

fasthorse05 said:

---

RiskManager93 said:

---

The original decision in Roe was leaked to Time in 1973.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/02/leak-time-magazine-roe-wade/?variant=15bc93f5a1ccbb65

---

First of all, wow! Had no idea.

Secondly, do y'all realize a 1 1/2 weeks from now we'll start the Sussman trial (glory be). Can't wait for that play-by-play.

Can we get one of our own to report from the court room? Nice time of the year to be in DC.

Lastly, is there a good time, or an ideal time, to issue indictments to someone? I'm asking because of the obvious, I'm hoping for more indictments---preferable the entire Dem Party!!

---

Before the Statute of Limitations expire.

fasthorse05 said:

---

RiskManager93 said:

---

The original decision in Roe was leaked to Time in 1973.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/02/leak-time-magazine-roe-wade/?variant=15bc93f5a1ccbb65

---

First of all, wow! Had no idea.

Secondly, do y'all realize a 1 1/2 weeks from now we'll start the Sussman trial (glory be). Can't wait for that play-by-play.

Can we get one of our own to report from the court room? Nice time of the year to be in DC.

Lastly, is there a good time, or an ideal time, to issue indictments to someone? I'm asking because of the obvious, I'm hoping for more indictments---preferably the entire Dem Party!!

---

Maybe. I will believe the Sussman trial happens when I can see it.

Anyone get a look at the unsealed docs yet?

I doubt Durham went to all this effort if he was of the professional opinion it would be for naught. Someone gonna pay...maybe more than one going down IMHO.

Secolobo said:

---

👀 https://t.co/6nNnPbKovM

— The Durham Report (@TheDurhamReport) May 4, 2022

---

LOL

Seago info is forthcoming on the docket, and reminder that all kinds of $hit is going down tomorrow at 10am.

Flashback reminder that Fusions privilege claims are frivolous AF.👇 https://t.co/emxiQQL9w6 pic.twitter.com/xUW6TuzR8Q

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) May 4, 2022

10am today Wednesday? Or Thursday?

I think they're in court today.

UPDATE - Durham won the first part of the fight.

Durham's motion to compel has been granted.

"Privileged" Fusion GPS e-mails/docs will be provided to the court for in camera review.

The court will then determine whether the "privileges" apply. (Durham will get the docs.) https://t.co/sPmR8Qackg pic.twitter.com/PZTXlpVEqx

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 4, 2022

The FBI decision to spy on ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page—a core abuse of Russiagate, one of the worst political smears in American history—hinged on an unsubstantiated rumor from a Hillary Clinton campaign-paid dossier ...https://t.co/WZRvKy8zkT

— RCInvestigations (@RCInvestigates) May 4, 2022

Good morning Marc,

Judge Cooper has granted the motion to compel documents for an In-Camera review.

Thought you would want to know. https://t.co/wDOytqq1Vg

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) May 4, 2022

fullback44 said:

---

its unbelievable that you guys have kept up with this for so long, years, and thanks for doing it. Some of us know very little about all of this legal lingo however you guys seem to bring it into focus at a lower level so the rest of us can actually understand "some" of it.

anyway, thanks again ! will be interesting to see where all this goes ? either way it seems pretty soon things will happen

---

YES! Thanks to the resident attorneys here. No way I could follow/understand/ decipher all this legal morass. However, I've become too jaded to believe that anything is going to happen to any politically connected people. There may be some underlings get a slap on the wrist and a fine, but no one is going to jail or going to be punitively punished in any way. These people live by a different set of rules.

Appreciate all those bringing us along on this journey. I have a few clarifying questions on the documents for in camera review.

Can someone clarify if Durham already has copies of the 36 or so documents for in camera review? My assumption is yes, but he doesn't have copies he can provide as evidence due to source of his documents.

If determined not to be privileged, when will the documents be released (full or partial) to the public?

Also, if the judge determines none of the content is remotely privileged what are the implications to the attorneys and clients clearly lying to the court?

paging Ms. Hawg

SamjamAg said:

---

Appreciate all those bringing us along on this journey. I have a few clarifying questions on the documents for in camera review.

Can someone clarify if Durham already has copies of the 36 or so documents for in camera review? My assumption is yes, but he doesn't have copies he can provide as evidence due to source of his documents.

If determined not to be privileged, when will the documents be released (full or partial) to the public?

Also, if the judge determines none of the content is remotely privileged what are the implications to the attorneys and clients clearly lying to the court?

---

I can only answer the first question.

And the answer to that is....

IANAL, so I may be wrong.

Durham does not have the requested documents. They are being withheld due to work product/Attorney Client Privileged communications. They likely know generally what the documents will say because of billing records and such, but not exactly.

ETA: I guess I should keep my IANAL musing to myself. Because hawg says I am wrong.

SamjamAg said:

---

Appreciate all those bringing us along on this journey. I have a few clarifying questions on the documents for in camera review.

Can someone clarify if Durham already has copies of the 36 or so documents for in camera review? My assumption is yes, but he doesn't have copies he can provide as evidence due to source of his documents.

If determined not to be privileged, when will the documents be released (full or partial) to the public?

Also, if the judge determines none of the content is remotely privileged what are the implications to the attorneys and clients clearly lying to the court?

---

That is my current working assumption. He got them from either Ratcliffe or Grennell and requires another foundation to make them admissible.

I now have a question after reading Brian Cates substack article...

Durham's Trapped Them All

Quote:

---

Sussmann's trial date is still currently set for May 16. Some time before then, I expect two things to happen:

1. Judge Cooper grants Durham's Motion To Compel Via In Camera review and
2. Sussmann to announce he's changing his plea to guilty

We'll see what happens.

---

We have already gotten a boat load of new information through this indictment. Is it likely this is how this ends? Does the HFA, DNC turn the screw on Sussman to make him take a deal so that this doesn't make it to court?

I am sure, like Brian says in his article, that HFA/DNC do not want to get on the stand and try to defend their ACP. Would Durham even accept a deal at this stage?