Tailgate88 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

Here you go, my tech-challenged friends! Here it is unrolled, all on one page here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1496209475489103873.html

Edit: didn't see the screen shots already posted. ThreadReaderApp is pretty cool though. And I hate Twitter. I really wish people would migrate somewhere else, especially Conservatives.

---

Only problem with the thread reader thing is if the tweets are deleted or the poster is banned, the tweets go away and the thread reader goes blank.

This 1300 page Clancy Novel needs all the documentation secure, even though in this case it's just a person's opinion

I just wish there was some way to turn this entire 1300+ pages into a manuscript.

---

Geez don't give me the mean eyebrow, just trying to help.

I hate Twitter and try to avoid it as much as possible, and definitely didn't know the thread reader went blank ... that is odd. You would think they would archive them. But whatever.

+1 on turning this into a manuscript. I have said before, this thread is a treasure trove of historical data on this entire saga and I know for a fact that people who had never heard of TexAgs now follow it for updates.

---

Mention me in the dedication page.

---

I was hoping you would be the editor.

---

In the vein of "Oh brother, where art thou?" and Clooney's line, I see her as "The power behind the throne."

Criminal individual, conspiracy and RICO. Can someone explain the benefits of each from a prosecution perspective and benefits over others. So lengthened statue of limitations is one for the latter two. I am guessing venue and being able to try outside DC is a huge one. Are there other prosecutorial benefits in what can be subpoenaed, penalties, discovery, etc. What is benefit of RICO over conspiracy and what is required in Spygate for Durham to reach it? Thanks.

https://briancates.substack.com/p/the-biggest-scandal-that-never-was

richardag said:

---

RyanM58699717 said:

---

will25u said:

---

https://t.co/Ah3V97JVxx

— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) February 13, 2022

---

This is the most important post in the entirety of Russiagate.

---

Would you expound a little more? Why the most important?

Edit spelling, seriously, Apple fix your autocorrect
"x pound" replaced "expound"

---

Might have to revisit this, its alot to type on a phone. Fool presents it as guesswork, but there is alot more to it publicly known and some non-public stuff.

I'd like to discuss it on my spaces chat thursday night, not to plug for the show, but its much easier to discuss out loud and im working on bringing a pretty awesome guest to do it who wrote a book called Loaded for Guccifer.

Basic outline emerging is one that supports the DNC hack as a false flag operation.

We also have some threads to pull on the enhanced attribution program they were apart of, and their connections to DOJ officials during the time frame of the GRU indictments.

Here is Jeff Carlson's extremely-lengthy timeline from October of 2018 posted on this thread.

Spygate

I am curious about how many revisions need to be made to reflect current revelations.

VaultingChemist said:

---

Whitetail said:

---

https://briancates.substack.com/p/the-biggest-scandal-that-never-was

---

Excellent article. The FBI launched the counterintelligence operation to find the Russian leaker within Hillary's campaign, not Trump's.

Quote:

---

They all knew. By mid-2016. Long before any FISA warrant application was presented to spy on Carter Page.
They all knew, nobody was fooled by the Clinton private operatives coming to them with the Steele Dossier hoax or the Alfa Bank hoax.
Obama knew. Biden knew. Comey knew. Brennan knew. Strzok knew. Susan Rice knew.
THEY. ALL. KNEW.
And they played along anyway and pretended they didn't know anything at all about a dirty trick campaign using paid operatives being sent to them by Hillary Clinton. So they could spy on and investigate and sabotage Donald J. Trump.
And Durham will 100% prove this.

---

---

Could the "leaker" have been Seth Rich?

No

RyanM58699717 said:

---

No

---

Really? That's pretty absolute!

You might look into Ty Clevenger's legal work involving Seth Rich and the absolute cover up of his assassination, a mere block from his home, wasn't robbed of any valuables, including his cash, expensive watch of his gold religious medallion necklace, and taken to a local hospital conscious and stable, and then suddenly dies. The FBI grabs his Macbook Pro and it's never seen again.

Then there's the cyber experts that forensically proved that the transfer rates of this reported "hack' was impossible outside of media direct transfer by some sort of portable HD or Thumb Drive inserted directly into the network. Until all those findings are disproven or explained saying Seth Rich absolutely wasn't the source of the leak is very questionable IMHO

There is no merit to anything having to do with Seth Rich being involved.

It's not a binary thing, there are MUCH simpler theories.

Who was the Russian informant in the Clinton campaign described in Brian Cates' article? Because I guarantee you they found who it was and that person was "dealt with" harshly and outside of the traditional judicial system.
It's also possible the Russians "took care" of their compromised informant.

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

Conspiracy is basically a legal verb. A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. In the case of Durham 18 USC 371 the statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government. ......

---

That's been my go-to statute and case law example for over 3 yrs. However, I've always assumed there must be an associated crime. The Haas vs Hinkel case involved bribery. Also, I've always assumed the act of conspiracy could be either (a) harmful or (b) unlawful. Big difference. Otherwise any campaign dirty trick conspiracy could be viewed as illegal.

Was it illegal for the Clinton campaign actors to conspire to provide their oppo research to the FBI ... provided they had plausible deniability of the research validity? Or was this an example of a harmful (but legal) campaign dirty trick to prompt the FBI to open an investigation? No question these were secret plots to cause harm - but were they unlawful?

Recently, I've wondered if multiple harmful acts (each individually lawful) - taken as a whole, constitute the illegal act of defrauding the government. Death by a thousand cuts analogy. Possibly this may be where Durham is headed - setting the stage with his 27 page Sussman indictment.

aggiehawg said:

---

At a minimum, it is making a false report to law enforcement, for which Sussman has already been charged. And the fact that the same law firm was being used over and over again is significant in that they had many many conflicts of interest. They got sloppy in that manner. All large law firms have conflict of interest protocols and Perkins, Coie's must have been blinking red during all of this.

Remember when we talked about all of the circular sourcing regarding the Steele Dossier? That was by design. That shows intent to mislead the FBI. Hell, Hillary and Robby Mook even tweeted about the Alfa Bank stuff.

---

Oh absolutely ... death by a thousand cuts and collectively advancing the crime of defrauding the FBI into opening Crossfire Hurricane. All going back to Barr appointing Durham to investigate if properly predicated.

Y'all, don't forget to appease my zeal by bringing something up about getting Rosenstein and/or Wray.

If nothing else, it makes me feel better.

I shouldn't say this because I can't remember which article it was, but I thought Rhodes did have NATSEC clearance, or at the very least, it was given to him.

Quote:

---

A Washington Post column by David Ignatius on Jan. 12, 2017, contained classified details that sparked a media frenzy. Citing a "senior U.S. government official," he wrote that Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak spoke on the phone in late December 2016 on the day former President Barack Obama announced sanctions on Russia and suggested that Flynn violated the Logan Act.

A list of officials who received information in response to unmasking requests showed that 16 individuals made 49 unmasking requests related to Flynn between Election Day 2016 and the end of January 2017, with President Joe Biden, who was Obama's vice president at the time, listed as the authorized recipient for a request made or received Jan. 12, 2017.

There is clear evidence that Biden heard about the FBI's interest in Flynn at least a week earlier. He attended a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting with Obama, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-national security adviser Susan Rice, and others.

---

Link

Interesting back and forth here

Follow the replies

Many here on Twitter have been piecing together the evidence that the entire Trump Russia collusion narrative was a fabrication of the Hillary Clinton campaign from the very beginning. This video of Robbie Mook on July 24, 2016, puts it all in perspective. He cites “experts” who

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) February 23, 2022

Who can forget Robby Mook's rollout of the grand scheme? It's really funny to watch now.
July 24, 2016https://t.co/CQNaAQeu8u

— Rob Johnson (@RobJohn78286472) February 23, 2022

Experts? Why the hell are they telling you that crap? Unless they are on your payroll?

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Was it illegal for the Clinton campaign actors to conspire to provide their oppo research to the FBI ... provided they had plausible deniability of the research validity? Or was this an example of a harmful (but legal) campaign dirty trick to prompt the FBI to open an investigation? No question these were secret plots to cause harm - but were they unlawful?

---

At a minimum, it is making a false report to law enforcement, for which Sussman has already been charged. And the fact that the same law firm was being used over and over again is significant in that they had many many conflicts of interest. They got sloppy in that manner. All large law firms have conflict of interest protocols and Perkins, Coie's must have been blinking red during all of this.

Remember when we talked about all of the circular sourcing regarding the Steele Dossier? That was by design. That shows intent to mislead the FBI. Hell, Hillary and Robby Mook even tweeted about the Alfa Bank stuff.

---

And we cannot forget that intent was absolute on the part of Sussmann purposely gave Baker Bogus sources for the data he turned over to Baker. And we know from Durham's filings Joffe's group was also reporting directly to the counterintelligence arm of the FBI, I'm guessing maybe Strzok. And my theory is Sussmann lied about his sources to make him look independent of Joffe.



My guess is Durham has flipped either Joffe or his Team leader at GA Tech David Dagon.

Lots of moving pieces in this game of chess. But with all the detail Durham laid out in that 27 page indictment he has flipped someone.

---

Hope you are correct. If someone flipped it would definitely accelerate the investigation.

Didn't Ryan tell us that Margo was coming out with something today?

Not Margot but interesting and reinforces my point.

Quote:

---

You can see why this caused a lot of agitation on the Democrats' side: Durham is laying out a case that Perkins Coie, through Sussman and with the active participation of Mark Elias, purposefully manufactured evidence against Trump that factored into the four-year investigation into "Russian collusion".

I've talked to several lawyer friends, and frankly, this appears to indicate many violations of law too many to list. But plenty that would send mere politically unconnected mortals to Leavenworth for the rest of their lives.

---

Quote:

---

What the motion is actually about. The actual action Durham is requesting is in paragraph 1 of the motion. Sussman has retained Latham and Watkins, another D.C. law firm, to represent him. The problem: Latham and Watkins has significant conflicts of interest. Sussman has already agreed to waive the conflict of interest concerns for Latham and Watkins, on advice of his counsel Latham and Watkins. Durham's motion asks the Court to investigate this and ensure that Sussman is fully informed, including possibly getting external counsel to advise Sussman, so it would be on the record that Sussman was fully informed.

On the face of it, it's just dotting the Ts and crossing the Is, cleaning up something that could be a possible reason for appeal if Sussman is convicted. The motion admits they don't expect a change in representation.

---

Quote:

---

So why the fuss? What Sussman presented Baker was a collection of "data and 'white papers'" claiming to show that the Trump Organization and some others (including a health care organization) were tied illicitly to Russia through the Alfa Bank. Paragraph 3 alleges that Sussman lied about his client; it also says that the general counsel of the Clinton campaign was in the loop. That would be the infamous Marc Elias.

---

Quote:

---

Now, people have been calling this "hacking," but hacking is usually understood as somehow breaking into a system, gaining unauthorized access. What Durham is saying instead is that Joffe used legitimate access, but used that access to gather proprietary and non-public information to build up this narrative.

Now it gets stranger. This started in July 2016, but weirdly after the election, Neustar had a "sensitive arrangement" (paragraph 3) that allowed it to "access and maintain" the servers of the Executive Office of the President. So this surreptitious access was happening under the Obama administration and continued after Trump took over. Here's the puzzle: How did this company, politically connected to the Democrats, get this contract?

On Feb. 9, 2017, Sussman presented further documents to the CIA making further allegations that Trump had illicit contacts with Russia (and in passing, lied again that he had no client).

How was this done? This is a second way the reporting goes astray. Joffe et al. were not collecting anything like the contents of emails, at least as far as the motion describes. Instead, they were collecting DNS lookups.

---

Quote:

---

But the DNS lookups are just the start of the story. Joffe sent this data on to Georgia Tech where there was already an existing project dealing with "large amounts" of internet data, with the specific task to develop a "narrative" tying Trump to Russia, in order to please "VIPs" that Durham identifies as people at Perkins Coie and the Clinton campaign.

I've been exposed to a lot of DARPA research on internet traffic as well as dealing with traffic analysis back when I was in the intelligence community. At least in the civilian world, that kind of captured traffic is normally "anonymized" transcribed in a way that is supposed to conceal the individuals involved. But give me the DNS lookups from a target of interest and I'd bet money that the anonymization could be reversed.

What Joffe et al. passed to the CIA and FBI was a collection of data that claimed Trump and associates were using special rare Russian cell phones in the vicinity of the White House. The motion mentions noncommittally that "[the] Special Counsel's Office has identified no support for these allegations."

There were a few other details that weren't presented to the government. In particular, Durham obtained more complete DNS information and discovered that between 2014 and 2017, there had been more than 3 million DNS lookups of the Russian IP addresses, of which fewer than 1,000 had any association with Trump.

---

Quote:

---

The motion says that contrary to the way it's being reported the Trump servers were not hacked. Instead, Joffe and his company exploited legitimate access they had to servers to collect data and pass it surreptitiously to "Internet researchers" with the explicit purpose of constructing a "narrative" of the Trump organization's connections to Russia.

It alleges, apparently with good information, that this was done to impress "VIPs" in the Clinton Campaign, including the Clinton Campaign General Counsel Marc Elias, and was being paid for by the Clinton Campaign through Perkins Coie.

The "narrative" was wholly fraudulent its main assertions were false, and the narrative was constructed by carefully cherry-picking data that they obtained while being contracted to maintain Trump servers, and then somehow continued through a contract managing the servers of the Executive Office of the President after Trump was inaugurated. Then when they presented the narrative to a (friendly) FBI, they lied about the connection.

---

Link

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Didn't Ryan tell us that Margo was coming out with something today?

---

Or tomorrow. "Wed or Thur."

Hawg, Sicandtired, or other, Can you please help explain?
Criminal individual, conspiracy and RICO. Can someone explain the benefits of each from a prosecution perspective and benefits over others. So lengthened statue of limitations is one for the latter two. I am guessing venue and being able to try outside DC is a huge one. Are there other prosecutorial benefits in what can be subpoenaed, penalties, discovery, etc. What is benefit of RICO over conspiracy and what is required in Spygate for Durham to reach it? Thanks.

Gracias.

aggiehawg said:

---

Not Margot but interesting and reinforces my point.

Quote:

---

You can see why this caused a lot of agitation on the Democrats' side: Durham is laying out a case that Perkins Coie, through Sussman and with the active participation of Mark Elias, purposefully manufactured evidence against Trump that factored into the four-year investigation into "Russian collusion".

I've talked to several lawyer friends, and frankly, this appears to indicate many violations of law too many to list. But plenty that would send mere politically unconnected mortals to Leavenworth for the rest of their lives.

---

Quote:

---

What the motion is actually about. The actual action Durham is requesting is in paragraph 1 of the motion. Sussman has retained Latham and Watkins, another D.C. law firm, to represent him. The problem: Latham and Watkins has significant conflicts of interest. Sussman has already agreed to waive the conflict of interest concerns for Latham and Watkins, on advice of his counsel Latham and Watkins. Durham's motion asks the Court to investigate this and ensure that Sussman is fully informed, including possibly getting external counsel to advise Sussman, so it would be on the record that Sussman was fully informed.

On the face of it, it's just dotting the Ts and crossing the Is, cleaning up something that could be a possible reason for appeal if Sussman is convicted. The motion admits they don't expect a change in representation.

---

Quote:

---

So why the fuss? What Sussman presented Baker was a collection of "data and 'white papers'" claiming to show that the Trump Organization and some others (including a health care organization) were tied illicitly to Russia through the Alfa Bank. Paragraph 3 alleges that Sussman lied about his client; it also says that the general counsel of the Clinton campaign was in the loop. That would be the infamous Marc Elias.

---

Quote:

---

Now, people have been calling this "hacking," but hacking is usually understood as somehow breaking into a system, gaining unauthorized access. What Durham is saying instead is that Joffe used legitimate access, but used that access to gather proprietary and non-public information to build up this narrative.

Now it gets stranger. This started in July 2016, but weirdly after the election, Neustar had a "sensitive arrangement" (paragraph 3) that allowed it to "access and maintain" the servers of the Executive Office of the President. So this surreptitious access was happening under the Obama administration and continued after Trump took over. Here's the puzzle: How did this company, politically connected to the Democrats, get this contract?

On Feb. 9, 2017, Sussman presented further documents to the CIA making further allegations that Trump had illicit contacts with Russia (and in passing, lied again that he had no client).

How was this done? This is a second way the reporting goes astray. Joffe et al. were not collecting anything like the contents of emails, at least as far as the motion describes. Instead, they were collecting DNS lookups.

---

Quote:

---

But the DNS lookups are just the start of the story. Joffe sent this data on to Georgia Tech where there was already an existing project dealing with "large amounts" of internet data, with the specific task to develop a "narrative" tying Trump to Russia, in order to please "VIPs" that Durham identifies as people at Perkins Coie and the Clinton campaign.

I've been exposed to a lot of DARPA research on internet traffic as well as dealing with traffic analysis back when I was in the intelligence community. At least in the civilian world, that kind of captured traffic is normally "anonymized" transcribed in a way that is supposed to conceal the individuals involved. But give me the DNS lookups from a target of interest and I'd bet money that the anonymization could be reversed.

What Joffe et al. passed to the CIA and FBI was a collection of data that claimed Trump and associates were using special rare Russian cell phones in the vicinity of the White House. The motion mentions noncommittally that "[the] Special Counsel's Office has identified no support for these allegations."

There were a few other details that weren't presented to the government. In particular, Durham obtained more complete DNS information and discovered that between 2014 and 2017, there had been more than 3 million DNS lookups of the Russian IP addresses, of which fewer than 1,000 had any association with Trump.

---

Quote:

---

The motion says that contrary to the way it's being reported the Trump servers were not hacked. Instead, Joffe and his company exploited legitimate access they had to servers to collect data and pass it surreptitiously to "Internet researchers" with the explicit purpose of constructing a "narrative" of the Trump organization's connections to Russia.

It alleges, apparently with good information, that this was done to impress "VIPs" in the Clinton Campaign, including the Clinton Campaign General Counsel Marc Elias, and was being paid for by the Clinton Campaign through Perkins Coie.

The "narrative" was wholly fraudulent its main assertions were false, and the narrative was constructed by carefully cherry-picking data that they obtained while being contracted to maintain Trump servers, and then somehow continued through a contract managing the servers of the Executive Office of the President after Trump was inaugurated. Then when they presented the narrative to a (friendly) FBI, they lied about the connection.

---

Link

---

When was this article published? Today? Looks like it.

There are things in this article that are basically lifted out of this very thread that were posted days ago.


https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2912732/replies/61526032


Hmmm who is this Charlie Martin. Hmmm Charlie Martin writes on science, health, culture, and technology for PJ Media.

blessed said:

---

Hawg, Sicandtired, or other, Can you please help explain?
Criminal individual, conspiracy and RICO. Can someone explain the benefits of each from a prosecution perspective and benefits over others. So lengthened statue of limitations is one for the latter two. I am guessing venue and being able to try outside DC is a huge one. Are there other prosecutorial benefits in what can be subpoenaed, penalties, discovery, etc. What is benefit of RICO over conspiracy and what is required in Spygate for Durham to reach it? Thanks.

---

First off in this case RICO is going to be a stretch, really a bridge to far honestly. In a RICO case the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an actual enterprise existed and that the enterprise affected interstate commerce, also that the defendant or defendants was associated with or employed by the enterprise. So unless you are going to call the US Government, (and I'm sure a lot do) an actual criminal enterprise, RICO is out. All these contractors and law firms will never be shoehorned into a RICO predicate.

SO the focus must be on Conspiracy, because the first and foremost the statute of limitations has run out on just these small individual crimes, but the conspiracy clock doesn't even start until the last act is done. It's always the cover up that really makes everything worse. And the cover up is a continuation of the conspiracy. Durham has to be mounting a stack of proof to connect it all or this just turns into a long report of wrongdoing with no accountability.

blessed said:

---

Hawg, Sicandtired, or other, Can you please help explain?
Criminal individual, conspiracy and RICO. Can someone explain the benefits of each from a prosecution perspective and benefits over others. So lengthened statue of limitations is one for the latter two. I am guessing venue and being able to try outside DC is a huge one. Are there other prosecutorial benefits in what can be subpoenaed, penalties, discovery, etc. What is benefit of RICO over conspiracy and what is required in Spygate for Durham to reach it? Thanks.

---

First, there is a civil RICO and a criminal RICO. Both are very involved and difficult to prove without some snitches to give the inside scoop. Seems Durham has at least one if not more. By definition, the racketeering has to be in furtherance of a criminal enterprise. What was the criminal enterprise here, that we know of? I'm not seeing it, presently. So let's put RICO aside for now.

But one of Mueller's favorites was conspiracy to defraud the United States. That is applicable to these facts as we know them thus far.

Quote:

---

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing 371).
The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.
Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defraud" provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

Quote:

---

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.

---

---

Link

Quote:

---

The maximum penalty for major fraud against the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1031 is 10 years' incarceration and/or a fine of up to $1,000,000.00. The maximum penalty for violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 287, the false claims statute, is 5 years in prison and/or a fine.

---

Discovery in federal criminal cases is dependent upon what the grand jury and the supervising judge allow by subpoena. People can always file a motion to quash, of course. But those are hard to win.

One other thing to keep in mind. Putting the idiots on Team Mueller aside, prosecutors will charge the case they feel they have the best chance of winning, not the case with the biggest bang for publicity reasons.

Just curious...does the honorable adam schiff have ANY 'liability fruit' hanging from a low limb in all this?

If so...PLEASE send me a pic of his "surprised look".