Manafort? The giving the internal polling crap to his business partner, Kilimnik?BQ78 said:
Senate committee report released and evidently according tot he WaPo did a more through job than Mueller and found the Russian collusion via Manafort.
Back to Russia, Russia, Russia part 13.
aggiehawg said:Manafort? The giving the internal polling crap to his business partner, Kilimnik?BQ78 said:
Senate committee report released and evidently according tot he WaPo did a more through job than Mueller and found the Russian collusion via Manafort.
Back to Russia, Russia, Russia part 13.
Longtime business partner as a political consultant. So two political consultants communicate when one of them is a campaign manager and that's collusion with Russia?captkirk said:aggiehawg said:Manafort? The giving the internal polling crap to his business partner, Kilimnik?BQ78 said:
Senate committee report released and evidently according tot he WaPo did a more through job than Mueller and found the Russian collusion via Manafort.
Back to Russia, Russia, Russia part 13.
Yeah, he colluded with his long time business partner
aggiehawg said:
I'm getting a little tired of sundance's dramatic tik toks.
Quote:
Each investigator/team is locked in their own private compartment. They've got the info they're collected on their own, and that's about it. All they've got is a handful of unconnected puzzle pieces. There are many such teams, each with their own puzzle pieces that are entirely different from the pieces other teams have collected. In fact, they probably don't even know exactly how many other teams there are, or how many pieces any of them have. Nobody knows if all the pieces have yet been collected, or even how many pieces the finished puzzle will have.
Enter Sundance. He goes to one investigator/team and borrows their puzzle pieces. Then to the next team and borrows theirs. Then the next, and so on until he's got them all. But there are still a few pieces missing fortunately those are pieces that Sundance himself had all along. And once ALL the pieces are in hand, he goes back to the individual teams, dumps the whole mess in front of them, and says "Here, NOW put it together."
I didn't give them puzzle pieces, I gave special investigator William Aldenberg the fully assembled puzzle.
[Twitter Thread]
Quote:
...
2.) The investigative agents, those who most people put their faith upon, are hampered by compartmentalized isolation of evidence. The system is purposefully set up that way.
Evidence is essentially silo'd.
3.) Those who understand my efforts understand the objective when cast against the reality of silo'd and compartmentalized evidence.
4.) The DOJ team, which includes investigative units who transition evidence from investigative use into actionable DOJ assemblies, do not track successfully across known firewalls....
5.) The Durham probe (for lack of a more authentic descriptive) do not communicate w/The Hill.
Ex. HPSCI does not communicate w/Durham; at least they do not successfully communicate.
In part this is because the receiver would be accepting the political intents of the evidence.
6.) Politics creates a compartmented information flow.
Information, even valid evidence that would be useful for investigators, becomes useless when retrieved or originated from political entities.
The result is actual Durham/Barr investigators do not know where most of the explosive evidence is located. This includes any documents that originate from inside this complemented process.
7.) As a result of this convoluted process; the Durham team knows little about any evidence their internal unit did not independently create.
This system design helps the compartmented and corrupt to escape accountability.
8.) Durham investigators therefore do not have a handle over the totality of evidence that exists in the public sphere; because the public evidence exists as extracted from numerous individual compartments - some of which they do not / cannot peer into.
9.) Previously both Senate and House staff admitted this was the fundamental flaw in their own investigations.
Additionally, this factual/structural flaw was confirmed to me today by the Durham investigative unit. [Read #8 Again]
10) Repeat: Durham investigators do not have a handle on the totality of evidence that exists in the public sphere; because the public evidence exists as extracted from numerous individual compartments - some of which they do not / cannot peer into.
11) When you understand that, you understand what I am doing.
I have extracted and collated evidence from inside each compartment; then assemble and deliver to the investigative unit in such a manner as the political toxicity is removed.
12.) Today they saw evidence for the first time that was never assembled. You would be stunned at what they do not know, because the institutional and political compartmentalization blocks the investigative use.
13.) There is no grand investigative plan. There is no bigger investigative design... because the quest to provenance evidence, the demanded process itself, must be self-originated.
14.) Example: judiciary.senate.gov/download/2018-
Despite this coming from FISC to AG Barr and into Senate Judiciary Committee; Durham team unaware of the letter dated July 12, 2018.
15.) As a result... customary DOJ investigations can continue (ad infinitum) and yet will not result in substantive action prior to the election.
That's where public questioning of investigative practices, and specific details, forces an investigative shift.
I think you just attempted to explain Sundance's statement above, but I don't understand.Quote:
8.) Durham investigators therefore do not have a handle over the totality of evidence that exists in the public sphere; because the public evidence exists as extracted from numerous individual compartments - some of which they do not / cannot peer into.
I don't believe Sundance uses news reports & Op-Eds other than for leads & announcements (unless he's criticizing a journalist/publisher). He relies on actual documents that have been released to the public, a number of which first appear in news reports but the latter provide links to the sources where the articles originated or can be found, such as: Congressional committees & testimonies, individual Congressmen, various government officials & offices such as IGs, court transcripts, investigative bodies, etc. If you follow his major articles, he almost always posts & quotes reference documents. For instance in his latest, he references & links a significant DOJ document that was an outright falsification to the FISA Court...and he claims the Durham investigative team (which he briefed) was unaware of this document.aggiehawg said:
Here's my problem, drcrinum. Something that I have long complained about in this thread and many others was the widespread use of news reports and op-eds in legal filings. Happens in prosecutions and defenses. Those are hearsay by definition and even worse with anonymous sources.
BUT that is the trend that has now become quite common. Hell, read Strzok and Page's texts. They talked in real time about the latest news articles. and discussed planting them as well. I have a hard time accepting they were the only ones in the FBI paying attention to the news and doing open source research.
Sundance's complaint rings very hollow to me.
Quote:
To be sure, Clinesmith has a lot to lose. He is a young lawyer. To judge by the tack he took in the aforementioned inspector general's investigation, Clinesmith calculates that the facts can be spun as murky, allowing him to finesse the guilty plea: Maybe he can get Durham and the judge to accept an allocution that is ambiguous regarding criminal intent; maybe he figures the prosecutor is so anxious to notch a guilty plea that he'll settle for a dubious one. Or maybe Clinesmith hopes he can somehow avoid being permanently disbarred: Say the bare minimum he can get away with in admitting a regrettable lapse in judgment, yet deny that he intentionally defrauded a court.
Whatever Kevin Clinesmith is thinking, his allocution would not be sufficient if it mirrors Shur's portrayal of what happened. If I'm the judge, I wouldn't accept such a guilty plea. And if I'm the Justice Department, and I'm convinced Clinesmith's story is a self-serving distortion, I wouldn't agree to accept the plea, to drop any charges, or to sign Clinesmith up as a cooperating witness.
The stakes are high for John Durham, too. In a high-profile investigation, the first charges and the first guilty plea set the tone. They signal whether the prosecutor has a case, whether he is negotiating from a position of strength or weakness. And everybody is watching.
His attorney's comments made me wonder if he was trying to enter an Alford plea. Since they didn't announce it as such, I'm guessing not.Quote:
Whatever Kevin Clinesmith is thinking, his allocution would not be sufficient if it mirrors Shur's portrayal of what happened. If I'm the judge, I wouldn't accept such a guilty plea. And if I'm the Justice Department, and I'm convinced Clinesmith's story is a self-serving distortion, I wouldn't agree to accept the plea, to drop any charges, or to sign Clinesmith up as a cooperating witness.
I hope Burr gets primaried.Quote:
Note that every R beside Burr and Collins signed an "additional views" section pointing out report's faults. Including "acting chairman" Rubio. Every D other than Warner (and independent King) signed a section that claimed--against all evidence--that Trump colluded with Russia
Hopefully he retires early, but he's announced already he's not running again. NC is weird in that they have a law that the governor (who is a Dem) has to appoint an interim from a list of 3 selected by the 'early retiring' Senator's state party. So, the NC GOP would have to come up with a list of 3 to replace him.akm91 said:I hope Burr gets primaried.Quote:
Note that every R beside Burr and Collins signed an "additional views" section pointing out report's faults. Including "acting chairman" Rubio. Every D other than Warner (and independent King) signed a section that claimed--against all evidence--that Trump colluded with Russia
Quote:
.......
In both examples, Wolfe and Assange, the actions by the special counsel reflect a predisposition to hide the much larger background story:
A prosecution of Wolfe would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and the United States senate. Two branches of government, the executive and the legislative, essentially working on one objective; the removal of a sitting president. The special counsel and DOJ decision protected multiple U.S. agencies and congress.
A non-prosecution of Assange would have exposed a complicit conspiracy between corrupt U.S. intelligence actors and a host of political interests who created a fraudulent Russia-collusion conspiracy with the central component of Russia "hacking" the DNC. If Assange were allowed to show he received the DNC emails from a leaker, and not from a hack, the central component of the Russia interference narrative would collapse. The special counsel and DOJ decision protected multiple U.S. agencies and Robert Mueller.
As soon as the special counsel was going to release their Russia report (aka the Mueller report), the EDVA shut down Assange with the DOJ indictment. This is in a similar way the DOJ shut down the Wolfe issue with a weak plea agreement.
Again, the key takeaway here is the timing. Both operations were taking place at the same time (Fall 2017 through spring/summer 2018). Both hold a similar purpose.
What we can see from both DOJ/SC operations is an intentional effort by Main Justice not to expose the epicenter of a multi-branch effort against the White House......
Pretty close. Let me give you an example from James Comey. Right after Comey had delivered that bizarre indictment/exoneration of Hillary in July 2016, he was summoned to the Hill. Jason Chaffetz was the chair of the House Judiciary Committee at the time and was asking Comey about Hillary's sworn testimony before the House and whether the FBI had taken that testimony into account. Comey rather nonchalantly replied, "No.'fasthorse05 said:I think you just attempted to explain Sundance's statement above, but I don't understand.Quote:
8.) Durham investigators therefore do not have a handle over the totality of evidence that exists in the public sphere; because the public evidence exists as extracted from numerous individual compartments - some of which they do not / cannot peer into.
What I think I read is that Durham's investigators didn't/haven't taken into account public evidence from news sources. I really don't understand the "cannot peer into" comment.
Are we on the same playing field?
If I recall the CEO admitted under oath they didn't have actual evidence of a Russian hack.Secolobo said:
Sidney retweeted.
Quote:
We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.....Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw.
