2/ In writing this skimmed over the 13 pages of interview notes of Barnett--I had forgotten many of the details. Starting a separate thread on that!. https://t.co/FkB1iQkLng
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 24, 2021
2/ by Internet I data obtained through senstive gov't contract & providing to 2 people outside that contract, the Left is forgetting all about William Barnett. Who'se he, you ask?
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 24, 2021
Steele told Ohr on September 23 that Millian was using the Alfa bank server. We don't yet have confirmation that same report was alleged by Joffe or Sussmann, but it seems likely. 2/x
— Ryan M (@RyanM58699717) September 26, 2021
subpoenas at Florida 15th Circuit court records https://t.co/PUiXykdDHX pic.twitter.com/vmezWGzjSf
— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) September 27, 2021
Neustar… pic.twitter.com/eA43peTmML
— walkafyre (@walkafyre) September 27, 2021
For some reason, Peter Fritsch really really doesn't want to tell his side of the Alfa Bank story.
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 28, 2021
h/t @walkafyre pic.twitter.com/f1lu3hIFPz
HE CAN'T DO THAT!!! HE IS A SC AND JOE BIDEN CAN'T JUST FIRE THEM WILLY NILLY! /dems(Talking about Mueller/Trump)aggiehawg said:
Wonder when Garland swoops in to shut this thing down? Durham is getting too close for comfort. Will Biden order Garland to fire him?
Democrats don't follow rules, so I am sure they would just fire him, and the news media would be perfectly happy with it. Not question a THING! Most politically motivated DOJ since... Obama!Quote:
The special counsel regulation under which Mueller was appointed gives the attorney general or acting attorney general authority to fire Mueller only for "good cause," such as misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity or conflict of interest.
If Whitaker decided to fire Mueller, he would need to inform the special counsel in writing of the specific reason for his termination.
Good cause is a difficult thing to show, especially since Mueller's actions were approved by the deputy attorney general, said Jens Ohlin, a professor of criminal law at Cornell Law School.
"I don't think Whitaker has good cause to fire Mueller. He would have to trump up some charges," Ohlin said.
You may be correct. We are in uncharted waters right now. It's not October 1973 when Nixon had the Saturday Night Massacre. Two AGs resigned instead of firing Archibald Cox as Nixon wanted. Interestingly enough, even though Nixon was about to be impeached before he resigned, the articles of impeachment were drafted but did not include anything about the firing of Cox. Jaworski thereafter proceeded untouched.nortex97 said:
Xiden won't have to order Garland to do anything. He will shut it down as it is an 'unnecessary use of resources' or something along those lines. Garland is a partisan hack, as we all know.
I've never thought very highly of Garland as a judge (although my genuine knowledge isn't good), however, I never, ever, thought he was crooked or corrupt like I do now.aggiehawg said:
Wonder when Garland swoops in to shut this thing down? Durham is getting too close for comfort. Will Biden order Garland to fire him?
Yes, when, like O'Rourke, he had to put on a cloak of 'moderate' to see if they could bait people into believing the facade/lie, he tried to appear quite different. Note the NRA recently spiking the football over how differently he apparently sees the 2nd Amendment in reality.fasthorse05 said:I've never thought very highly of Garland as a judge (although my genuine knowledge isn't good), however, I never, ever, thought he was crooked or corrupt like I do now.aggiehawg said:
Wonder when Garland swoops in to shut this thing down? Durham is getting too close for comfort. Will Biden order Garland to fire him?
Some of his actions since he took office tell me how well Obama and his staff did their homework when they chose Garland for SCOTUS.
Garland is a smarmy, sly, crooked, judge, and is likely as bad as ANY judge in the southern US in the Jim Crow days.
I also notice no 'concerned moderates' have posted any surprise thoughts as to his clearly political hack positions as AG.Quote:
The government's brief, filed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Justice, also gives complete vindication to the NRA's opposition to now Attorney General Merrick Garland's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016, when he was a federal appellate judge. Anti-gun pundits had mocked that opposition at the time, falsely claiming there was no legal basis for it, even though Garland had voted to rehear a case that had ruled an outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment.
Yet, as we had explained, the only plausible reason to support such a "do-over" was that the court had come to the wrong conclusion. Why repeat something already done correctly?
Now, as AG, Garland is advocating that the U.S. Supreme Court effectively remove the right to "bear arms" from the U.S. Constitution. The administration's brief additionally argues for what it calls a "reasonable regulation" standard for other types of gun control and for its implementation via "intermediate scrutiny." Activist and anti-gun courts have used this standard to uphold not just may-issue licensing schemes but sweeping bans on some of America's most popular types of firearms and magazines.
Fortunately, the United States Senate blocked Garland's Supreme Court appointment in 2016. Thus, while his noxious view of the Second Amendment will still be put forth before the court, he at least won't have the opportunity to cast a vote against the right to bear arms himself, as he undoubtedly would have.
While no outcome at the Supreme Court is ever guaranteed, Second Amendment advocates should if anything be in an even stronger position this time around than during the court's prior visitations of the Second Amendment in 2008 and 2010.
And Merrick Garland --Barack Obama's handpicked choice to replace the legendary Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark Second Amendment opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller will have to watch from the sidelines as just another lawyer.
Jake Sullivan's wife Maggie Goodlander clerked for Merrick Garland (and is part of his inner circle) so is Merrick Garland really going to allow Durham to prosecute Jake Sullivan for perjury?
— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) September 29, 2021
Answer? That would be hard NO.will25u said:Jake Sullivan's wife Maggie Goodlander clerked for Merrick Garland (and is part of his inner circle) so is Merrick Garland really going to allow Durham to prosecute Jake Sullivan for perjury?
— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) September 29, 2021
Judge Leon signed off yesterday on Steele, Burrows, Wood, and Baumgartner depositions. https://t.co/79FuEvCPv7 pic.twitter.com/5uzNUYgtLX
— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) September 24, 2021
Did they go back to Ham Radio for Spygate 2020 too? https://t.co/ff33dWfJwQ
— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 30, 2021
Looks like he also renewed the license in 2000, and also filed a change of address from Studio City, CA to Arizona. Renewals are a 10 year period so license probably goes back to 1990 or 1980 but those are not in the online records. pic.twitter.com/L1z88F4c9T
— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 30, 2021
This is the obvious type of conduct Durham should have deposed her/Bruce about, by now, but of course that will never happen.Quote:
That brings us to Nellie Ohr, holder of amateur radio call sign KM4UDZ. Ohr graduated from Harvard University in 1983 with a degree in history and Russian literature. She studied in the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained a PhD in Russian history in 1990.
For those of you who may be tempted to read her 400-plus page PhD thesis, here's a spoiler alert: in murdering untold millions, Joseph Stalin may have engaged in some "excesses" which, in her words, "sometimes represented desperate measures taken by a government that had little real control over the country." Translated into simple English, she meant, "Hey, cut the guy some slack. Creating a proletarian paradise can be tough and anybody can get carried away."
She is said to be fluent in the Russian language and an expert on cybersecurity. Her husband is Bruce Ohr, the former number four official in President Obama's Justice Department.
According to a sworn court filing by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, she was hired by that firm to conduct opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign against candidate Donald Trump. In his statement, Simpson acknowledged bank records reflect that Fusion GPS contracted with her "to help our company with its research and analysis of Mr. Trump."
At the same time, Fusion GPS retained the services of former British spy and FBI informant Christopher Steele to obtain derogatory information from his Russian sources about Trump. The final Fusion GPS product became the now-discredited eponymous Steele dossier, which James Comey's FBI and Obama's DOJ used to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants to spy on a Trump campaign member.
Who Are Nellie and Bruce Ohr?
The so-called Nunes memorandum by the Republican majority on the House Intelligence Committee states Nellie Ohr was "employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump" and added that her husband "later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research." Sen. Lindsey Graham has stated publicly that she "did the research for Mr. Steele."
We now know that, before the House Intelligence Committee, Simpson disclosed that he met personally with Bruce Ohr "at his request, after the November 2016 election to discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election." That committee also learned that during the election campaign, Bruce Ohr met with Steele, the dossier's author.
It has also come out that Bruce Ohr failed to report the source of his wife's income from Fusion GPS on his DOJ ethics disclosure forms. Such disclosure is mandatory, and Ohr's omission raises many questions.
For example, under the law, such an omission could be considered evidence tending to prove his consciousness of guilt. Why would he, in effect, conceal by omission his wife's employment by the firm that produced the meretricious Steele dossier that his own employer, the Obama DOJ, submitted under oath to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for authorization to spy on the Trump campaign and presidency? Was he trying to hide his connections with Fusion GPS? If so, why? And what inference should a jury draw from such concealment?
He is not alone in this regard. What about Nellie Ohr's ham radio license?
Why Did Nellie Ohr Suddenly Become a Ham in 2016?
Ohr is a member of Women in International Security, which describes itself as supporting "research projects and policy engagement initiatives on critical international security issues, including the nexus between gender and security." She has done cybersecurity consulting for Accenture, a politically connected firm, for which she gave a presentation on "Ties Between Government Intelligence Services and Cyber Criminals Closer Than You Think?"
Did she develop an overwhelming middle-aged desire to talk to geeks over the radio?
It is apparent that, between her own professional experience and her marriage to a top DOJ official, she was well aware of the ability of the National Security Agency to intercept and store every communication on the Internet. Did this knowledge have anything to do with her mid-life decision to become a ham radio operator and communicate outside cyberspace?
I got into amateur radio because I was a horny, zit-infested teenager with no hope of ever successfully interacting with members of the opposite sex. Faced with that reality, I sublimated my priapic energies into learning electronics and building radios. My sublimated adolescent urges were so strong that, on several occasions, I almost invented the Internet 20 years before the Pentagon and Al Gore got around to it.
That's why I became a ham. So what's Nellie's excuse? Did she develop an overwhelming middle-aged desire to talk to geeks over the radio? Was this a case of Sudden Onset Geek Syndrome? Or is there some other less benign explanation?
What Was Happening When Nellie Ohr Got Her License
On May 23, 2016, she received a technician-level amateur radio license. The timing is significant. The presidential campaign was underway and she and her employer, Fusion GPS, were digging for dirt in Russia to use against Trump. Given her cybersecurity knowledge, was Nellie Ohr hoping to use non-cyber short wave communications to hide her participation in that nefarious effort from the NSA?
Recall that, in early 2016, NSA head Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of "ongoing" and "intentional" violations and abuse of FISA surveillance, which he subsequently exposed in testimony before Congress. Thereafter, pressure mounted within the Obama administration to fire him.
The week after the presidential election, when he was facing removal from his post, Rogers visited the president-elect at Trump Tower. On November 19, 2016, Reuters reported that Rogers' decision "to travel to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday without notifying superiors caused consternation at senior levels of the [Obama] administration."
The day following Rogers' visit, the president-elect's transition team vacated Trump Tower and moved its operations to New Jersey. Was this because Rogers had warned Trump that he and his transition team were being subjected to illegal government surveillance? While that is unknown, it is clear that Rogers was not and had never been an Obama team player, such that he and his agency posed a potential threat to Fusion GPS's operation as well as the anti-Trump elements at the FBI and DOJ.
So, was Nellie Ohr's late-in-life foray into ham radio an effort to evade the Rogers-led NSA detecting her participation in compiling the Russian-sourced Steele dossier? Just as her husband's omissions on his DOJ ethics forms raise an inference of improper motive, any competent prosecutor could use the circumstantial evidence of her taking up ham radio while digging for dirt on Trump to prove her consciousness of guilt and intention to conceal illegal activities.
This type of circumstantial evidence can be quite powerful. For example, a video of a nun buying a bustier at Victoria's Secret would not be direct evidence that she was having an affair. But it most assuredly would prompt a jury to seriously wonder about her motives and commitment to celibacy. The same can be said for Nelly's ham license. Just what was she up to?
Undoubtedly further information on this topic will be forthcoming. But, in the meantime, it is fair to ask in the ham vernacular of yesteryear, "Dit-dah-dah; dah; dit-dit-dah-dit?" That's Morse code for "WTF?"
Over 200 Woods violations in 29 FISA applications https://t.co/w7m4IblOnW
— FoulSpirit (@Pimpernell13) September 30, 2021
Quote:
In seeking additional documents from Sussmann's former law firm, Perkins Coie, investigators from the special counsel's office appear to be sharpening their focus on the Democratic political machinery during the 2016 campaign and efforts to tie Trump to Russia.
New round of subpoenas by Special Counsel Durham.
— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 30, 2021
Those who thought Durham was a ‘head fake’ hardest hit! #ButNothingsHappening https://t.co/V6PK3QXjnl
Expect the scope to be narrowed further by Garland if in fact any additional indictments are made. Quietly, of course. Any final report would come out somewhere around December 2023.Quote:
Still, more than two years after being commissioned by then Attorney General William Barr to investigate whether federal authorities improperly targeted the Trump campaign, Durham has little to show for his efforts. His special counsel probe, which has lasted longer than Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, has so far brought only two lying charges against little-known figures, including the case against Sussmann, who has pleaded not guilty.
The results have underwhelmed Trump supporters who had hoped former top FBI and intelligence officials would be prosecuted for "spying" on Trump and his campaign.
Already the scope of Durham's probe has narrowed after Barr announced last year that investigators had found no wrongdoing by the CIA. Yet Durham has continued his investigation, largely in secrecy, working out of a non-descript office building near trendy Washington's Union Market.
I also added Andrew McCarthys article to my post above.nortex97 said:
Optimistic tweets to CNN articles that don't support the emotion are...par for the course.Expect the scope to be narrowed further by Garland if in fact any additional indictments are made. Quietly, of course. Any final report would come out somewhere around December 2023.Quote:
Still, more than two years after being commissioned by then Attorney General William Barr to investigate whether federal authorities improperly targeted the Trump campaign, Durham has little to show for his efforts. His special counsel probe, which has lasted longer than Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, has so far brought only two lying charges against little-known figures, including the case against Sussmann, who has pleaded not guilty.
The results have underwhelmed Trump supporters who had hoped former top FBI and intelligence officials would be prosecuted for "spying" on Trump and his campaign.
Already the scope of Durham's probe has narrowed after Barr announced last year that investigators had found no wrongdoing by the CIA. Yet Durham has continued his investigation, largely in secrecy, working out of a non-descript office building near trendy Washington's Union Market.
Fine, but you know what, that report will be to the AG. As in Garland. Does anyone think Garland will publish, within days, as Barr did an accurate public summary of the report, or even ever release it's details? That's not how communists work.Quote:
As Brittany notes, the new grand jury subpoenas could indicate that Durham is contemplating additional charges against Sussmann, and perhaps others. Potential prosecution is always the first consideration when a prosecutor is using the grand jury to compel the production of evidence.
It is also worth noting that, as a special counsel (which Durham was designated to be by former Trump attorney general Bill Barr in an arrangement that has continued under Biden attorney general Merrick Garland), it is expected that Durham will write a narrative report as, for example, special counsel Robert Mueller did outlining the findings of his investigation, including misconduct that may indicate corruption but not merit prosecution.
US intel stenographers Savage and Goldman present arguments of Joffe and Dagonhttps://t.co/SddUq7fFl1
— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) September 30, 2021
Joffe is Tech Exec 1/Max; Lorenzen is Originator-1/TeaLeaves; Dagon is Researcher-2; Antonakkis is Researcher-1; University-1 is Georgia Tech. pic.twitter.com/W6ESRoOToD
— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) September 30, 2021
Also missing from New York Times story by intel stenographers Savage and Goldman: identifications of InternetCompany-2 and InternetCompany-3, both associated with Joffe, but with soft identifications thus far: Packet Forensics, Vostrom, perhaps Centergate.
— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) September 30, 2021
I am pretty sure it is laying out who is who in the Sussman indictment that was redacted. Like Tech Executive 1 = Robert Joffe, etc.Sully Dog said:
Explain this part to me like I'm 5.
Quick Reference Card.... It's the elevator speech that has never changed in the past four years. pic.twitter.com/IE4sRHdUdm
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) September 30, 2021
To be more precise, they were described by classification and number. They were not "redacted" as in blacked out. Nor were they designated as "unindicted co-conspirators." There's a difference.will25u said:I am pretty sure it is laying out who is who in the Sussman indictment that was redacted. Like Tech Executive 1 = Robert Joffe, etc.Sully Dog said:
Explain this part to me like I'm 5.
And how did Sussmann become a target of the investigation?
— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) September 30, 2021
The same way most of the Spygate players found themselves under investigation.
When their lies were contradicted & exposed by FBI Director Jim @Comey's under oath testimony! https://t.co/1ngPTVWIF6 pic.twitter.com/hkZfe2h0iZ
NSC is not responding to questions about whether Sullivan has met with John Durham.
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) September 30, 2021
Remains to be learned whether Sullivan authorized Sussman’s contact with FBI and journalists
And Podesta testified under oath with Elias sitting next to him he knew nothing about the Clinton team funding the dossier. It's sweaty in the Podesta house tonight.
— Ryan M (@RyanM58699717) September 30, 2021
