Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts

7,746,582 Views | 49415 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by fasthorse05
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

According to Durham, Baker told investigators that Sussmann said he was not raising suspicions about the Trump campaign on behalf of any client. However, during a deposition before Congress in 2017, Sussmann said that he "sought the meeting on behalf of an unnamed client who was a cybersecurity expert and had helped analyze the data."

Furthermore, billing records that Durham obtained from Perkins Coie allegedly show that when Sussman "logged certain hours as working on the Alfa Bank matter," he billed the time to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. At the time, Marc Elias, another partner at Perkins Coie, was serving as general counsel for the Clinton campaign.

Sussmann's lawyers have claimed that their client was not working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, insisting that he was "representing the cybersecurity expert he mentioned to Congress."

"They are also said to have argued that the billing records are misleading because Mr. Sussmann was not charging his client for work on the Alfa Bank matter, but needed to show internally that he was working on something," noted the Times. "He was discussing the matter with Mr. Elias and the campaign paid a flat monthly retainer to the firm, so Mr. Sussmann's hours did not result in any additional charges."
What a dumb thing to say. That's not how retainers usually work. And submitting billable hours but not charging the client for any of them? That arrangement is most often in a contingent fee case where you need documentation to be awarded fees and costs if the case is successful in court.

Sussman's direct involvement with hiring CrowdStrike for the DNC "hacking" allegations puts him squarely in line with being an attorney working, at a minimum, the DNC.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So was he falsifying his billable hours then?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
captkirk said:

So was he falsifying his billable hours then?
Certainly could make that argument, a la The Firm style. Would have to see how the retainer and fee agreements with those clients were structured.

Retainer agreements are always subject to review by the client. When things get busy on the legal front but then drop down after a case is settled for instance, monthly retainers could be lowered if there is not enough hours being billed against it. Most clients don't want to use their money to give their attorneys an interest free loan like that.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thread.

will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thread


will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MarkTwain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

captkirk said:

So was he falsifying his billable hours then?
Certainly could make that argument, a la The Firm style. Would have to see how the retainer and fee agreements with those clients were structured.

Retainer agreements are always subject to review by the client. When things get busy on the legal front but then drop down after a case is settled for instance, monthly retainers could be lowered if there is not enough hours being billed against it. Most clients don't want to use their money to give their attorneys an interest free loan like that.
Bendini, Lambert & Locke
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Claverack
How long do you want to ignore this user?


This merited a hearing during the election.

Hopefully he isn't done and this will continue well into 2022.

EKUAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RulesForTheeNotForMe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But... But... But.... It was TRUMP that weaponized the federal agencies to go after his opponents... Right Libs?
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It would be nice to bump some threads where concerned moderates and libs were loving on Steele and calling it the truth. Unfortunately our overlords don't like us bumping threads.
Claverack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
backintexas2013 said:

It would be nice to bump some threads where concerned moderates and libs were loving on Steele and calling it the truth. Unfortunately our overlords don't like us bumping threads.
The Piss Tape Prophets know who they are. One can normally find them on an election fraud thread chastising people for believing in "conspiracy theories" that are far more valid than the one they bought from Steele.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BillYeoman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One count indictment. But it goes pretty far into the weeds showing a conspiracy between Tech companies, Tech Executives and other including Marc Elias. I know that Tech Company 1 is Google and it's parent organization.

The others are not named as unindicted co-conspirators because there is not a conspiracy charge here, much to my surprise.

Could other indictments be coming down the pike? Have no idea but nothing in that indictment today rules it out, that I can see. (Also remember there can always be superceding indictments later and this one count indictment is just a placeholder to satisfy the Statute of Limitations.)

My .02.
Claverack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John Maplethorpe said:

Wall of words with 0 crimes or malfeasance. Classic Gateway Pundit tactic.
Care to walk it back now?

SPF250
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hawg: What is (are) the statute(s) of limitations on this mess anyway? Gotta be expiring soon for a lot of these crimes.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SPF250 said:

Hawg: What is (are) the statute(s) of limitations on this mess anyway? Gotta be expiring soon for a lot of these crimes.
Most federal crimes are five years. Reading the indictment there were meetings and communications occurring as late as November 2016. so there is still some time left for other indictments against other people.

Not saying that will happen but it is possible.
B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've heard the "intel asset" thing rumored, but does Dawson go into much detail? I used to follow this account closely, but haven't for the past year or so.



SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
US Technology Executive? @Jack?
B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SpreadsheetAg said:

US Technology Executive? @Jack?
I was curious who we might land on for TE-1. Specifically points out access to DNS info, so no sure what Twitter might have to do with that specifically. Though it's hard to deny that Jack has been a big player all these years.

Jury is still out for me on this one though.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Tech Executive-1" obviously knows it's him/her mentioned in this indictment. Do you think he/she is sweating bullets right now or no?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
B2Ag05 said:

SpreadsheetAg said:

US Technology Executive? @Jack?
I was curious who we might land on for TE-1. Specifically points out access to DNS info, so no sure what Twitter might have to do with that specifically. Though it's hard to deny that Jack has been a big player all these years.

Jury is still out for me on this one though.
Google has long been a client at Perkins, Coie. Also remember Google owned CrowdStrike before their IPO in 2018, IIRC.
B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

"Tech Executive-1" obviously knows it's him/her mentioned in this indictment. Do you think he/she is sweating bullets right now or no?
Probably not. Those folks believe they are bulletproof. And sadly, they may be right.

From a legal standpoint, not being named as unindicted co-conspirators here can be a mixed bag. OTOH, Sussman was not charged with conspiracy so by definition they wouldn't be within the four corners of this particular indictment, that is.

In theory, Durham can bring superceding indicts against Sussman and add conspiracy counts. Which then would increase their criminal exposure but there is still a SOL problem for a lot of this activity was earlier in 2016 but not all of it.

IOW, today's indictment may end up being the only one and a nothingburger at that. OR, there are more shoes left to drop.
B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

B2Ag05 said:

SpreadsheetAg said:

US Technology Executive? @Jack?
I was curious who we might land on for TE-1. Specifically points out access to DNS info, so no sure what Twitter might have to do with that specifically. Though it's hard to deny that Jack has been a big player all these years.

Jury is still out for me on this one though.
Google has long been a client at Perkins, Coie. Also remember Google owned CrowdStrike before their IPO in 2018, IIRC.
Not that it would discredit the connection on it's own, but the indictment uses google.com as an example of a DNS lookup, which seems a little on the nose.

That said, Google does have many services, of which nameservers and DNS resolution are one.

captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

One count indictment. But it goes pretty far into the weeds showing a conspiracy between Tech companies, Tech Executives and other including Marc Elias. I know that Tech Company 1 is Google and it's parent organization.

The others are not named as unindicted co-conspirators because there is not a conspiracy charge here, much to my surprise.

Could other indictments be coming down the pike? Have no idea but nothing in that indictment today rules it out, that I can see. (Also remember there can always be superceding indictments later and this one count indictment is just a placeholder to satisfy the Statute of Limitations.)

My .02.
WTH was Google involved?
B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Garrelli 5000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'll believe it when I otherwise see it, but at a glance - emphasis on glance - they're pinning the entire thing on Sussman from a DOJ standpoint.

They'll say "yes, the muh-russia stuff was wrong, but this guy (Sussman) is to blame" and it'll disappear like a fart in the wind.

It won't be covered, he'll just be the fall guy for "sophisticated" liberals to toss out when the scandal comes up in conversation. He'll be disbarred at most, pay a fine, and move on.

Nothing to see here, just a white lie, no reason in digging deeper, one rogue lawyer who now regrets his overzealous misstep. Sad HRC took such a brutal fall for his mistake...

B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
captkirk said:

aggiehawg said:

One count indictment. But it goes pretty far into the weeds showing a conspiracy between Tech companies, Tech Executives and other including Marc Elias. I know that Tech Company 1 is Google and it's parent organization.

The others are not named as unindicted co-conspirators because there is not a conspiracy charge here, much to my surprise.

Could other indictments be coming down the pike? Have no idea but nothing in that indictment today rules it out, that I can see. (Also remember there can always be superceding indictments later and this one count indictment is just a placeholder to satisfy the Statute of Limitations.)

My .02.
WTH was Google involved?
Because second only to the NSA they have more electronic information on everybody that's why.
pacecar02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pretty close ties between crowdstrike and google
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
pacecar02 said:

Pretty close ties between crowdstrike and google
Agree. Eric Schmidt was CEO at Google back then. Shawn Henry was CEO of CrowdStrike and still is last I checked.

Tech Exec 1 is likely Schmidt. And Schmidt had his tentacles into the other tech companies referenced in the indictment.

Just spitballing here but that's my guess.
Boodlum
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am seeing what looks to be discussion of fabrication of evidence and providing false evidence. Would those be additional charges? Especially against the tech experts etc involved?

You think the charges again sussman are an attempt to get him to plea and cooperate? This certainly feels much larger than just a lying to the feds charge.
First Page Last Page
Page 1300 of 1412
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.