🚨🚨🚨

Soloman tells Stinchfield the indictment today was released because of the Statute of Limitations but there are more to come. pic.twitter.com/w3KgVoceKJ

— wyntre (@Wyntre999) September 17, 2021

Not conspiracy charges. The 5 years doesn't start ticking until the last action is taken as part of the conspiracy.

— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 17, 2021

#DurhamIndictment Statement Sean Berkowitz + Michael Bosworth, Latham & Watkins, LLP
"Michael Sussmann was indicted today because of politics, not facts +Mr. Sussmann will fight this baseless and politically-inspired prosecution. @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/BT7fsCUOPP

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) September 17, 2021

will25u said:

---

This FBI Analyst Couldn't Verify Steele Dossier Yet Said Nothing https://t.co/sIUB90dxc9

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 16, 2021

---

Sick demented hatchet men. Should be in jail.

We blew by page 1300 today.

This was obvious yrs ago, but Durham’s indictment proves your own campaign was paying the lawyer who fed this Trump/Russia server lie to the media & your top staffers (Mook, Elias, & Sullivan) were in on it weeks before you tweeted this election interference lie out to millions https://t.co/PJShfwdWK6 pic.twitter.com/bQYXmjMt3q

— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) September 16, 2021

Biden knew.

Reminder: CIA briefed Obama & Biden on intelligence suggesting that Hillary & her campaign cooked up the entire Russia hoax as part of a scheme to deflect from Hillary’s email server problems. pic.twitter.com/AzHI4gLSo9

— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) September 16, 2021

Hillary must be drunk....

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

Hillary must be drunk....

---

That Hillary tweet above is from 2016

nortex97 said:

---

Durham, bigfoot, aliens, one of them has to be real.

---

I'll go with Durham.

Quick question, notwithstanding the accountability of Clinton and her campaign lackeys under the law, and assuming Durham proves culpability, would Trump be able to suit either Clinton, or her campaign?

I don't recall it happening before, but there's always a first.

Here is Jake Sullivan on CNN peddling the Alfa Bank hoax, a key portion of the Russiagate conspiracy theory

He is now Biden’s national security advisor pic.twitter.com/yIeevvRjJC

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) September 17, 2021

Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016

fasthorse05 said:

---

Quick question, notwithstanding the accountability of Clinton and her campaign lackeys under the law, and assuming Durham proves culpability, would Trump be able to suit either Clinton, or her campaign?

I don't recall it happening before, but there's always a first.

---

If so, discovery would be…glorious.

Quote:

---

Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.

---

Even her wording in this tweet SCREAMS psy-op. We've all known this was BS for 3+ years. How TF are people this stupid?

Look at the date of her tweet. It was from 5 years ago.

Who is "Tech Executive-1"? https://t.co/Dz95FgBUAF

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) September 16, 2021

There are several good possibilities out there, but thus far fools premise is looking real strong.

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) September 17, 2021

Yes he has been all over https://t.co/JgtVQ67AP6 pic.twitter.com/vAeJK23Hi2

— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) September 17, 2021

Nope, game over!

— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) September 17, 2021

Jabin said:

---

Look at the date of her tweet. It was from 5 years ago.

---

I am well aware of that.

Great read by Andy McCarthy.

The Real Story in Durham's Indictment of Democratic Lawyer Michael Sussmann

Quote:

---

here is a long game and a short game going on in special counsel John Durham's indictment of Democratic Party lawyer Michael Sussmann on a false-statements count.

The short of it is this: A false statement was allegedly made by Sussmann to the FBI's then-general counsel, James Baker, on September 19, 2016. In federal law, the false-statement crime has a five-year statute of limitations, meaning it had to be charged by this Sunday (September 19, 2021). Consequently, even if Durham would probably have preferred to wait until his full investigation was concluded before filing indictments, by delaying beyond Sunday, he would have lost what appears to be an eminently provable felony charge. If he was going to indict Sussmann on this conduct, it was now or never.

Now, more critically, the long game.

It is unusual for a one-count false-statement charge, which can be alleged in a paragraph, to be presented as a 27-page speaking indictment. But Durham wrote a highly detailed account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the false-statements charge. It is significant in that it tells us far more about his investigation.

---

Personally, I just don't get the "snails pace" of Durham's investigation and the Justice System et al. At this rate, most (if not all) parties will be long deceased before any convictions occur. Legal system needs a stern, swift kick in the a$$!

whatthehey78 said:

---

Personally, I just don't get the "snails pace" of Durham's investigation and the Justice System et al. At this rate, most (if not all) parties will be long deceased before any convictions occur. Legal system needs a stern, swift kick in the a$$!

---

Not a defense of Durham by any means but getting all of those electronic records, especially involving attorneys and clients can be a laborious process.

But not that laborious to take nearly two years.

That 27 page indictment reveals a vast network, if you will, of players and questions of who knew what when? Criminal accountability may be a reach for many of them as it becomes more of a political story.

Maybe the best we can hope for is some lawyers lose their licenses only to be hired as high priced consultants to Dem think-tanks. The swamp protects their own.

<sigh>

Lastly a caveat: it is far more easy to "know" something than it is to prove it in a court of law. That is particularly true when attorneys and their clients are the subject of inquiry. Was the lawyer acting at the direction of the client? Or was the lawyer given broad ambiguous objectives and went rogue?

ETA: IIRC, Perkins, Coie made some of their billing records available to Mueller well before Durham was even directed to begin the probe. Team Mueller knew about all of this most likely.

will25u said:

---

Great read by Andy McCarthy.

The Real Story in Durham's Indictment of Democratic Lawyer Michael Sussmann

Quote:

---

here is a long game and a short game going on in special counsel John Durham's indictment of Democratic Party lawyer Michael Sussmann on a false-statements count.

The short of it is this: A false statement was allegedly made by Sussmann to the FBI's then-general counsel, James Baker, on September 19, 2016. In federal law, the false-statement crime has a five-year statute of limitations, meaning it had to be charged by this Sunday (September 19, 2021). Consequently, even if Durham would probably have preferred to wait until his full investigation was concluded before filing indictments, by delaying beyond Sunday, he would have lost what appears to be an eminently provable felony charge. If he was going to indict Sussmann on this conduct, it was now or never.

Now, more critically, the long game.

It is unusual for a one-count false-statement charge, which can be alleged in a paragraph, to be presented as a 27-page speaking indictment. But Durham wrote a highly detailed account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the false-statements charge. It is significant in that it tells us far more about his investigation.

---

---

Read the whole article. The juicy parts not quoted above

ETA:. Obama judge.

third-party. His next court date will be 9/22 at 11am in front of U.S. district judge Christopher Cooper via @JakeMRosen @CBSNews NOTE: Indictment page 2 lays out central allegation and Sussmann clients — tech executive, internet company, HRC presidential campaign. pic.twitter.com/LkZiAZuLuX

— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) September 17, 2021

As I said this morning, this indictment is waking up investigative reporters. They now see the hints of a real conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory as they have been told this is...

Wait until they start to realized it is building toward RICO indictments...#ButNothingsHappening https://t.co/VZR3dMwkLR

— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 17, 2021

Incredible thread!

That individual keystone may not look that important, it may even look merely decorative to the untrained eye.
But it is the essential engineering piece to build the entire wall, building or cathedral. pic.twitter.com/ulDa9hY3If

— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 17, 2021

"Investigative reporters"

There will be no "Durham Report"(that we know of), the "Durham Report" will be told through his indictments.

And this seems to be a pretty interesting Preamble/Chapter I.

Hawg, do attorneys, more specifically special counsel types, often play the waiting game in order to obtain new, and or, additional information?

I'm asking because it seems everyone associated with the Dem party doesn't have to respond to any subpoenas on the first try, and sometimes not at all. I know Durham has the subpoena power, but it seems to be an extraordinary long time.

BTW, congrats on last weekend.

fasthorse05 said:

---

Hawg, do attorneys, more specifically special counsel types, often play the waiting game in order to obtain new, and or, additional information?

I'm asking because it seems everyone associated with the Dem party doesn't have to respond to any subpoenas on the first try, and sometimes not at all. I know Durham has the subpoena power, but it seems to be an extraordinary long time.

BTW, congrats on last weekend.

---

Kind of depends on the situation. For instance, you have some information but need more from the former employee of a corporate defendant. That corporate defendant no longer controls that employee and doesn't have to produce them upon a simple notice for a deposition duces tecum. (The duces tecum means bring the documents with you.) You would have to subpoena the former employee directly. That's in a civil setting.

In a criminal setting such as what Durham is using a grand jury to issue subpoenas, such subpoenas need to be tightly worded because of 4th amendment concerns. On the other hand, they have the option of issuing the subpoena to the provider or holder of the information sought as well. (Think cell phone provider or Trump accountants that have his tax information.) Also with government employees, there are recordkeeping requirements.

Finally throw in the possible attorney client implications, then you need a taint team separate from the prosecution team going through everything to see what is is not privileged.

As I have stated earlier, having an attorney and that attorney's clients as the subject of the grand jury probe can become quite laborious and time consuming. They can be both moving as fast as they can in certain aspects of a probe and sitting back to take their time on others. It is an allocation of resources and prioritizing exercise.

Kind of muddy but I hope that answered your question.

Mrs. Hawg;
Sincere THANKS for your clarifications!

whatthehey78 said:

---

Mrs. Hawg;
Sincere THANKS for your clarifications!

---

You're welcome.

After all of the time and effort I have put into this thread, to finally see more affirmation of what I was saying for years is somewhat gratifying. But oh how much I wished I had been wrong more often than being right over target.

The legal work never made much sense to me by Team Mueller. So unprofessional, ridiculous at times. For six figure salaried attorneys to mess up that much made me very suspicious of WTH was going on the background behind the scenes.

Team Mueller fulfilled their roles. They successfully hid and screwed up enough to keep the bread and circus folks happy.

Good heavens, yes! You always do.

Like I've said about 3 times in the last three years on this thread, I've learned so much I should probably go ahead an take the bar because my theory part would likely be okee dokee.

My practicality would suck because of what I believe the law says, and what it likely says due to "Marx vs. Abbot and Costello: 1939", case law!!

will25u said:

---

Great read by Andy McCarthy.

The Real Story in Durham's Indictment of Democratic Lawyer Michael Sussmann

Quote:

---

here is a long game and a short game going on in special counsel John Durham's indictment of Democratic Party lawyer Michael Sussmann on a false-statements count.

The short of it is this: A false statement was allegedly made by Sussmann to the FBI's then-general counsel, James Baker, on September 19, 2016. In federal law, the false-statement crime has a five-year statute of limitations, meaning it had to be charged by this Sunday (September 19, 2021). Consequently, even if Durham would probably have preferred to wait until his full investigation was concluded before filing indictments, by delaying beyond Sunday, he would have lost what appears to be an eminently provable felony charge. If he was going to indict Sussmann on this conduct, it was now or never.

Now, more critically, the long game.

It is unusual for a one-count false-statement charge, which can be alleged in a paragraph, to be presented as a 27-page speaking indictment. But Durham wrote a highly detailed account of the facts and circumstances surrounding the false-statements charge. It is significant in that it tells us far more about his investigation.

---

---

The last line of the article doesn't give me confidence people will ever be held accountable legally.
"I suddenly think the eventual Durham report could be very interesting reading."
I don't particularly want interesting reading, I much prefer people being sent to jail. This was a traitorous plot by legally and morally corrupt people.

@FOOL_NELSON has picked up on a likely connection between an allegation in the Sussmann indictment and two footnotes in the Horowitz report: https://t.co/i5UNZ7Rag5

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) September 17, 2021

narrative. The main thrust of the indictment was that when he met with the FBI in September, Sussmann lied about who his clients were that were behind the narrative spinning effort. The Horowitz footnotes indicate that the CH told the FBI in July and August who was behind the

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) September 17, 2021

To put a cap on this, many have rightly made to point that the FBI could not have been genuinely fooled that Sussmann’s client, the campaign or the DNC, were not involved behind the scenes in putting this narrative together. That suggests his lie that he wasn’t representing

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) September 17, 2021

The Horowitz footnote describing how McCabe instructed the team not to talk to the confidential source anymore has always been a mystery, at least to me. Is Durham about to connect the Alfa Bank narrative conspiracy together with an FBI CH conspiracy , tied up with a neat ribbon

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) September 17, 2021

More democrat incestuousness.

The judge in Sussmans case needs to recuse, in fact should have immediately. His wife is/was Lisa Pages attorney. https://t.co/BC6rXj6vpO

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) September 18, 2021

Thread...

The judge on Sussmann’s case was a parter at Covington & Burling LLP and served on the Obama/Biden transition team as an advisor on Justice Department issues. Seems totally fair.

— 𝕔hi𝓁𝓁iຖ໐iˢ (@chiIIum) September 17, 2021

The Horowitz footnote describing how McCabe instructed the team not to talk to the confidential source anymore has always been a mystery, at least to me. Is Durham about to connect the Alfa Bank narrative conspiracy together with an FBI CH conspiracy , tied up with a neat ribbon

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) September 17, 2021

Pretty simple.

Chalupa https://t.co/pv0p3fVLFr

— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) September 17, 2021