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
He seems optimistic, I am not. He also tweeted:B2Ag05 said:
Incredible thread!That individual keystone may not look that important, it may even look merely decorative to the untrained eye.
— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 17, 2021
But it is the essential engineering piece to build the entire wall, building or cathedral. pic.twitter.com/ulDa9hY3If
That's a a muddy as photograph that one is certain is not fake because knew when and where it was taken. That's superbly clear. Thanks!aggiehawg said: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.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.
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.
Oh yes, that's delusional. They are the heart of the corruption, as is Pelosi and Schumer.richardag said:He seems optimistic, I am not. He also tweeted:B2Ag05 said:
Incredible thread!That individual keystone may not look that important, it may even look merely decorative to the untrained eye.
— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 17, 2021
But it is the essential engineering piece to build the entire wall, building or cathedral. pic.twitter.com/ulDa9hY3IfI personally do not believe Biden nor Garland care to cleanse their party and will not allow this to continue.
- Biden & Garland will let it continue to cleanse their party of the corruption. Just as Trump did to the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party leadership is completely amoral corrupt and only interested in their power.
Go look at some of his old threads when he was saying Fred Trump and Donald Trump were FBI undercover assets for decades, right in the middle of crossfire hurricane and the FBI was trying to nail Trump. This Dawson guy right fantasy fiction to troll people.titan said:Oh yes, that's delusional. They are the heart of the corruption, as is Pelosi and Schumer.richardag said:He seems optimistic, I am not. He also tweeted:B2Ag05 said:
Incredible thread!That individual keystone may not look that important, it may even look merely decorative to the untrained eye.
— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 17, 2021
But it is the essential engineering piece to build the entire wall, building or cathedral. pic.twitter.com/ulDa9hY3IfI personally do not believe Biden nor Garland care to cleanse their party and will not allow this to continue.
- Biden & Garland will let it continue to cleanse their party of the corruption. Just as Trump did to the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party leadership is completely amoral corrupt and only interested in their power.
A friend poses an interesting question to me offline:
— shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) September 18, 2021
If the Mueller SCO was tasked with examining ALL connections between Trump and Russia, why didn't they figure out the Sussmann enterprise?
1. Extends SOL on conspiracy.
— shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) September 19, 2021
2. Takes venue outside.
3. Is another substantive "false statement" count.
4. Explains why only this one count is charged -- had to be charged by 9/19, and had to be charged in DC because that's where the meeting with Baker took place.
AND
You can have venue in any federal district where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place. The only venue for the false statement charge is where it was made -- DC.
— shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) September 19, 2021
But Agency 2 is likely CIA, and they are in Virginia. Therefore, venue can be in EDVA.
Meanwhile, Mark Elias, the real mastermind behind the Russiagate lies and subsequent witch hunt, has virtually unlimited funds for 'election lawsuits' moving into the 2022 season. On to the next great lie/electoral theft/insurance policies, for the left.Quote:
But I go by track record, and John Durham's track record shows he is a good investigator and a smart bureaucrat. He will go just deep enough in his prosecutions to satisfy the public but not so far as to endanger the establishment.
I base this on the Whitey Bulger case. He was a gangster in Boston who was politically connected. His brother Billy became President of the Massachusetts Senate. Upon retirement, he became a well-paid bureaucrat in the state college system.
His other brother was Jackie, a court clerk magistrate who after retirement went to prison for fixing grand juries.
Beginning in 1975, Whitey served as an informant for the FBI. This protected him and allowed him to rat out his competition. It was a pretty good deal that ended in 1994 when the DEA got a RICO indictment on him. State and local police helped the investigation as the DEA iced the racketeer-influenced corrupt FBI out of the deal.
Sadly, one of his FBI cronies learned about the indictment, told Bulger, and he skipped town. There was a manhunt for him and ironically, the FBI eventually placed him on its most wanted list, right behind Osama bin Laden.
Janet Reno later sent Durham in to investigate. He convicted the agent who tipped Whitey off, and he indicted a retired FBI agent who also helped Whitey. The retiree died before he was tried.
That's nice.
What about Senate President Billy Bulger?
What about the supervisors at the FBI?
What about the U.S. attorneys who prosecuted Whitey's rivals?
Durham did the minimum and got an Attaboy out of it.
In the waning days of the second Bush presidency, the attorney general assigned Durham to investigate the destruction of tapes of interrogations at Gitmo. No charges were filed. The final report remains sealed.
Eric Holder assigned him to look at the actual interrogations. Same result. No charges.
After a couple of years looking into the use of the FBI to spy on Donald Trump and the Russiagate hoax, he got a minor conviction of one lawyer and has now indicted Michael Sussmann, a partner at Perkins Coie who has since left the firm.
Compare and contrast that to the speed with which the FBI set-up and forced General Flynn to cop a plea.
Sussman is not a part of these new Elias ventures.Quote:
According to the network's most recent tax forms, the four funds combined to haul in $715 million in cash from secret donors in 2019 alone. The group also pushes money to outside organizations that do not fall under its auspices.
In addition to Democracy Docket LLC, Elias created the Democracy Docket Action Fund to raise money for voting rights lawsuits, The New York Times reported last year. According to an ActBlue donation page, the action fund is a project of the North Fund, which also boasts connections to Arabella Advisors.
The North Fund reported $9.3 million in donations in 2019, according to its tax forms. Its sole donor was the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Arabella-managed-group's tax forms show.
Saurabh Gupta, who is listed in North Fund's tax forms as general counsel, is also general counsel for Arabella Advisors, according to the consulting firm's website.
"Marc Elias just launched his new firm, but what has not been reported is the funding source for his lawsuits," Americans for Public Trust Executive Director Caitlin Sutherland told Fox News. "Mr. Elias frequently raises money for the Democracy Docket Action Fund, but what he isn't telling his loyal followers is the fund is a project of the Arabella-connected North Fund."
Sutherland said the North Fund is "shadowy," even by D.C. standards.
"And his other group, Democracy Docket Legal Fund, is just a project of the Arabella-managed Hopewell Fund," Sutherland told Fox News. "All of this together means that as Arabella Advisors' dark money attorney, Mr. Elias will have access to nearly unlimited funding to file lawsuits across the country."
Because the Democracy Docket legal and action funds are fiscally sponsored by other nonprofits, they are not required to file individual tax forms to the IRS that would shed light on their financials.
Yes, I did. When Rosenstein kept changing the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel and widening it, not narrowing it, that was suspicious to me. The August 2, 2017 Rosenberg jurisdictional memo that was secret for awhile and then heavily redacted when it was released is the key.will25u said:
I think Mrs Hawg already hit this...A friend poses an interesting question to me offline:
— shipwreckedcrew.substack.com (@shipwreckedcrew) September 18, 2021
If the Mueller SCO was tasked with examining ALL connections between Trump and Russia, why didn't they figure out the Sussmann enterprise?
Already concerns over conflict of interest in Michael Sussmann case — judge is married to lawyer for anti-Trump operative Lisa Page.
— Lee Smith (@LeeSmithDC) September 20, 2021
Me in @JustTheNews https://t.co/Uv1Ve2VllE
I can easily envision Durham filing a superceding indictment that alleges an actual conspiracy charge that makes Lisa Page and actual/potential witness (if not an unindicted co-conspirator).will25u said:
Think I already posted this, or someone did, but reposting nevertheless.Already concerns over conflict of interest in Michael Sussmann case — judge is married to lawyer for anti-Trump operative Lisa Page.
— Lee Smith (@LeeSmithDC) September 20, 2021
Me in @JustTheNews https://t.co/Uv1Ve2VllE
Durham's expertise is internal government corruption mostly, but his reputation for attention to detail and not being politically influenced is top notch. Also his batting average as far as convictions is tip top. His only knock I've ever found was him moving slowly, but if you're turning over every rock in something this complex it takes time.nortex97 said:
What on earth about Durham's past/current activities leads you to actually think he is going to make a big RICO case, period? I see absolutely no reason for such optimism. I could posit that for some attorneys but it's not in his background/body of work at all.
Would love to understand this comment more because it sure seems like they were doing what they could to undermine and get Trump wrapped up in something which would have him removed from office.Quote:
The right is just as wrong about spygate & collusion as the left is. They still haven't figured out that Comey & the FBI were never really investigating Trump. Though a handful of dirty FBI tried hard.
RICO is a possibility but not the only criminal avenue here. Conspiracy to commit a crime doesn't have to be racketeering to be illegal.nortex97 said:
What on earth about Durham's past/current activities leads you to actually think he is going to make a big RICO case, period? I see absolutely no reason for such optimism. I could posit that for some attorneys but it's not in his background/body of work at all.
"The adults"
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 17, 2021
🤡🤡🤡 https://t.co/crw06U9onw
The 27 page speaking indictment for a single false statement charge is what gives me any hope that Durham is not shrinking away. Why waste that amount of time if that is all he's going to charge?nortex97 said:
Ok but it's all 18 USC 371, right? He has no history of that (or show me where I'm wrong, happy to recant/repent). Sure, the feds want to throw absolutely everything at the 'insurrectionists' from J6, but the exact opposite is true of Garland/DoJ regarding everything about Russiagate.
Durham has a history of...not bringing big charges. Every federal prosecutor has an exceptional conviction rate, that's how the system works. He's as political/slick as anyone else in DoJ at that level. Much of the rest/reputation otherwise is basically a mythology.
What is it that you consider "Big"?nortex97 said:
Ok but it's all 18 USC 371, right? He has no history of that (or show me where I'm wrong, happy to recant/repent). Sure, the feds want to throw absolutely everything at the 'insurrectionists' from J6, but the exact opposite is true of Garland/DoJ regarding everything about Russiagate.
Durham has a history of...not bringing big charges. Every federal prosecutor has an exceptional conviction rate, that's how the system works. He's as political/slick as anyone else in DoJ at that level. Much of the rest/reputation otherwise is basically a mythology.
You're grossly inflating his resume, and impact on Whitey in particular. Quote from my post above;sicandtiredTXN said:What is it that you consider "Big"?nortex97 said:
Ok but it's all 18 USC 371, right? He has no history of that (or show me where I'm wrong, happy to recant/repent). Sure, the feds want to throw absolutely everything at the 'insurrectionists' from J6, but the exact opposite is true of Garland/DoJ regarding everything about Russiagate.
Durham has a history of...not bringing big charges. Every federal prosecutor has an exceptional conviction rate, that's how the system works. He's as political/slick as anyone else in DoJ at that level. Much of the rest/reputation otherwise is basically a mythology.
When Durham revealed how Robert Mueller literally framed people when he was the US Prosecutor 1968 on the murder convictions of Enrico Tameleo, Joseph Salvati, Peter J. Limone and Louis Greco! They had been framed by the FBI and Mueller covered it all up as US Atty and at the time Durham was exposing all this in 2007 Mueller was the DIrector of the FBI. It was a HUGE scandal. Mueller and his minions were all tied in with Whitey Bulger. They made a deal with Bulger that he vanish and not return to Boston and keep his mouth shut and the FBI would leave him alone. He went as far from Boston as you could get, moved to Santa Monica CA and got a new identity, then after vanishing for years Mueller ups and renigs and they pick him up, Eric Holder and company gave Bulger two consecutive life sentences and locked him away forever. Mueller retires and disappears, until he's appointed special counsel.
Remember the suspicious circumstances in which Whitey died? At the height of the Mueller investigation against Trump Whitey started making noise about Mueller, Reporters with the Boston Globe were trying to get interviews with him, and the FDC kept transferring him around. Bulger was transferred to several facilities in October 2018; first to the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma and then to the United States Penitentiary, Hazelton, near Bruceton Mills, West Virginia and was shanked by inmates in the sallyport where he was left unattended in his wheelchair.
Bottom line is Durham has a lot more substance than you're giving him credit for. The take down of John Connolly and his direct role in a slew of New England states mob convictions is pretty well documented I'm sure. Durham's not flashy but he gets the job done.
Quote:
But I go by track record, and John Durham's track record shows he is a good investigator and a smart bureaucrat. He will go just deep enough in his prosecutions to satisfy the public but not so far as to endanger the establishment.
I base this on the Whitey Bulger case. He was a gangster in Boston who was politically connected. His brother Billy became President of the Massachusetts Senate. Upon retirement, he became a well-paid bureaucrat in the state college system.
His other brother was Jackie, a court clerk magistrate who after retirement went to prison for fixing grand juries.
Beginning in 1975, Whitey served as an informant for the FBI. This protected him and allowed him to rat out his competition. It was a pretty good deal that ended in 1994 when the DEA got a RICO indictment on him. State and local police helped the investigation as the DEA iced the racketeer-influenced corrupt FBI out of the deal.
Sadly, one of his FBI cronies learned about the indictment, told Bulger, and he skipped town. There was a manhunt for him and ironically, the FBI eventually placed him on its most wanted list, right behind Osama bin Laden.
Janet Reno later sent Durham in to investigate. He convicted the agent who tipped Whitey off, and he indicted a retired FBI agent who also helped Whitey. The retiree died before he was tried.
That's nice.
What about Senate President Billy Bulger?
What about the supervisors at the FBI?
What about the U.S. attorneys who prosecuted Whitey's rivals?
Durham did the minimum and got an Attaboy out of it.
In the waning days of the second Bush presidency, the attorney general assigned Durham to investigate the destruction of tapes of interrogations at Gitmo. No charges were filed. The final report remains sealed.
Eric Holder assigned him to look at the actual interrogations. Same result. No charges.
It's one long indictment of one mid-level figure. That's it. As a reminder, some neutral types like RCI expected bombshells from his investigation OVER a year ago. Andrew McCarthy and partisans on the right thought much more would happen, quickly, election season 2020 be damned.aggiehawg said:The 27 page speaking indictment for a single false statement charge is what gives me any hope that Durham is not shrinking away. Why waste that amount of time if that is all he's going to charge?nortex97 said:
Ok but it's all 18 USC 371, right? He has no history of that (or show me where I'm wrong, happy to recant/repent). Sure, the feds want to throw absolutely everything at the 'insurrectionists' from J6, but the exact opposite is true of Garland/DoJ regarding everything about Russiagate.
Durham has a history of...not bringing big charges. Every federal prosecutor has an exceptional conviction rate, that's how the system works. He's as political/slick as anyone else in DoJ at that level. Much of the rest/reputation otherwise is basically a mythology.
But you maybe correct and that wasting taxpayer money to justify your continued job requires massive speaking indictments.
That's what all of the Team Mueller indictments were. A bunch of hoo-hah unrelated to the actual charges.
At least Durham's was related to the target.
Right now, the subject is restricted to the Alfa Bank allegations but those didn't happen in a vacuum. All of the Russia allegations originated from the same source and were disseminated by the same group of people, Sussmann and Elias included.
He's not my type, thank you. I'd go back more but I think my post on page 302 is still my attitude; institutions protect themselves first. Everything else second. The DoJ/FBI are not about to tarnish what is left of their own reputations to take down the russiagate perpetrators.sicandtiredTXN said:
I appreciate your opinion but I can see you have an obvious hard on got Durham and I can't change that but Bulger was the key to everything in Boston and without him it was just a bunch of loose ends. When Durham got those convictions overturned that set off alarms and Bulger had to permanently disappear and the FBI made it happen
We looked to John Durham's next steps -
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 20, 2021
How internal Fusion GPS e-mails may prove a bigger conspiracy than Durham has let on.
And who else might face charges.https://t.co/OvAKVMS1pE
Alfa Bank conspiracy would be a repeat of what Fusion GPS did w/ the Steele Dossiers.
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 20, 2021
Fusion GPS e-mails show drafts of Trump/Carter Page research making the rounds in the summer of 2016. pic.twitter.com/98ZTTch4Z2
As I stated before:will25u said:We looked to John Durham's next steps -
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 20, 2021
How internal Fusion GPS e-mails may prove a bigger conspiracy than Durham has let on.
And who else might face charges.https://t.co/OvAKVMS1pEAlfa Bank conspiracy would be a repeat of what Fusion GPS did w/ the Steele Dossiers.
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 20, 2021
Fusion GPS e-mails show drafts of Trump/Carter Page research making the rounds in the summer of 2016. pic.twitter.com/98ZTTch4Z2
Quote:
Right now, the subject is restricted to the Alfa Bank allegations but those didn't happen in a vacuum. All of the Russia allegations originated from the same source and were disseminated by the same group of people, Sussmann and Elias included.
Quote:
In Washington, there is no greater indication of wrongdoing than the number of people denouncing efforts to investigate it. The "nothing to see here" crowd went into hyperventilation this week when Special Counsel John Durham indicted a former Clinton campaign lawyer, Michael Sussmann. Legal experts who spent years validating every possible criminal charge against Trump and his associates are now insisting that Durham needs to end his investigation. The Washington Post heaped ridicule on
Durham despite an indictment detailing an effort to hide the connection to the Clinton campaign and a concerted effort to push false Russian collusion claims.
Keep in mind that Durham was ordered to investigate the origins of the Russian investigation, including claims that those origins were unlawfully concealed or knowingly false. The Sussmann indictment involves both issues after he allegedly pushed a false allegation of collusion and then hid the fact that he was working for the Clinton campaign.
I have been writing about the expected push back to end the investigation of John Durham and particularly oppose the release of his report. Right on cue, the Post responded with a bizarre editorial from the Washington Post that suggested that Durham should just stop immediately.
Quote:
It is the methodical reputation of Durham that makes him so dangerous. He is known for dogged pursuit of wrongdoing without political or personal bias. I have referred to his investigation as an "eephus," a slow pitch, due to the impact of the pandemic and his decision not to move publicly before the election.
Ironically, before the election, Democrats demanded that Durham slow down or stop any action. Mueller top aide, Andrew Weissmann, even called on prosecutors and investigators to refuse to assist Durham before the election. In reality, Durham decided that he would not act before the election even though it further delayed his investigation. Now the Washington Post and others are chastising him for waiting so long.
Quote:
For its part, the Post editors ran a mocking editorial entitled "John Durham's zombie Russia investigation produces an iffy indictment. Is this all there is?" The editorial focused on the fact that Sussmann is charged with just one count of lying to federal investigators under 18 U.S.C. 1001. That provision is the classic charge for Washington scandals. It is rarely the original scandal but the cover up that gets people into trouble in Washington. What makes the indictment so significant is not the charge but the narrative the very point that Mueller supporters noted when he brought the same charge against Trump figures.
Quote:
I questioned many of the false statement charges brought by Mueller as unrelated to Russian collusion or, in the case of Flynn, the abusive elements of the case. I also failed to see the consistency in the handling of false statement cases. However, I still supported the continuation of the Mueller investigation.
One line also stands out: "The danger of special counsel investigations is that, given unlimited time and resources, they often find some bad action tangentially related to their original inquiry that may have had little or no substantial negative impact."
LinkQuote:
Judging from the alarm at the indictment, Durham has every reason to finish his work. While many of the actors are now beyond the reach of charges due to the statute of limitations, he is preparing a report that could answer many questions on how the Russian investigation began. Yet, like Trump's demanding the end of the Mueller investigation, the calls to stop Durham only deepen suspicions. As I said in opposition to Trump's attacks on Mueller, there is a point where you "doth protest too much."
Just as I supported the appointment of a Special Counsel on Russian collusion and his finishing his work, the same is true here. Even if there are no more indictments, Durham would at a minimum bring clarity about what happened . . . which is precisely why many want him to stop immediately.
Techno Fog I'm pretty certain is femalewill25u said:
I may be mistaken, but Techno Fog has been pretty good at digging and giving his opinions.
Maybe I am wrong, though.
Quote:
Judge Christopher Cooper's ties to leading Democrats and key figure in discredited Trump-Russia probe should disqualify him from case of Michael Sussmann, lawyer who fed anti-Trump dirt to FBI while hiding connection to Hillary Clinton campaign.
