Interesting x2.

"Defense attorneys unveiled their own high-powered witness list. It includes Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, former acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord and Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau."

Those names tell you all. https://t.co/MkDenlaxSM

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 9, 2022

Interesting.... pitting them against themselves like this.

FJB said:

---

Interesting.... pitting them against themselves like this.

---

Yeah, this trial is going to be a s***show with few people corroborating the others. Too bad it will be in federal court and not on TV. (Against the rules.)

Some extended court room drama and then everyone goes home...as usual.

Good ⁦article @AlanCullison⁩ ⁦@aviswanatha⁩

You left some meat on the bone on inconsistencies and allegations related to Millian, but otherwise this is well done. https://t.co/uYwrqSGO1V

— UndeadFOIA (@UndeadFoia) May 9, 2022

Stephen Kupka as Organizer-1 h/t @_mzishi_ https://t.co/zFcqio1yXx pic.twitter.com/78nBIUBbHY

— FOOL NELSON (@FOOL_NELSON) May 9, 2022

aggiehawg said:

---

FJB said:

---

Interesting.... pitting them against themselves like this.

---

Yeah, this trial is going to be a s***show with few people corroborating the others. Too bad it will be in federal court and not on TV. (Against the rules.)

---

Good, that was the way I read it too.

Would LOVE to have a little microphone, or listening device, in the court room during the trial.

I really don't like any of them, but for some reason, I really dislike Dan Jones, even though he's not on the list. Someone needs to drop him on a deserted island with Tom Hanks.

BTW, even though Cooper is doing his job by providing cover for the DNC "importants", is there still an opening to get others involved in this mass political caper? Not Hillary necessarily, although it would be neat to see her name run in the ground, but about 25 others all named in this 1300 page thread!

fasthorse05 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

FJB said:

---

Interesting.... pitting them against themselves like this.

---

Yeah, this trial is going to be a s***show with few people corroborating the others. Too bad it will be in federal court and not on TV. (Against the rules.)

---

Good, that was the way I read it too.

Would LOVE to have a little microphone, or listening device, in the court room during the trial.

I really don't like any of them, but for some reason, I really dislike Dan Jones, even though he's not on the list. Someone needs to drop him on a deserted island with Tom Hanks.

---

Problem is, who will the jury believe? If nearly everyone is telling a different story and no one really lines up with the documentary evidence, you get a hung jury.

Okay, you're off the motivational speaking team today for telling the truth!

fasthorse05 said:

---

Okay, you're off the motivational speaking team today for telling the truth!

---

LOL. Sorry about that.

But Durham has the text message from the night before saying it was not for a client. Durham's team will be hammering on that very very hard. This a false statement case. And with all of these witnesses it may be the longest false statement case in the history of that statute.

aggiehawg said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

FJB said:

---

Interesting.... pitting them against themselves like this.

---

Yeah, this trial is going to be a s***show with few people corroborating the others. Too bad it will be in federal court and not on TV. (Against the rules.)

---

Good, that was the way I read it too.

Would LOVE to have a little microphone, or listening device, in the court room during the trial.

I really don't like any of them, but for some reason, I really dislike Dan Jones, even though he's not on the list. Someone needs to drop him on a deserted island with Tom Hanks.

---

Problem is, who will the jury believe? If nearly everyone is telling a different story and no one really lines up with the documentary evidence, you get a hung jury.

---

It is a DC jury...they will believe whoever is saying the bad things about Trump.

I assume Joffe defrauding the govt is next on their checklist. Conspiracy next if they get a guilty verdict?

TRM said:

---

I assume Joffe defrauding the govt is next on their checklist. Conspiracy next if they get a guilty verdict?

---

Hell if I know. Unsure of which building blocks Durham has and which building blocks he still needs for any sealed indictments...or potential new ones.

Then there is also the possibility that he could use their voluntary testimony in this trial as acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, extending Statutes of Limitations. That could also include the efforts of the Hillary campaign to thwart Durham in this trial. Still pursuant to an original conspiracy?

Lots of strategy in different directions are possible right now. Why it is jaw dropping to me why any of these a-holes are testifying without an immunity deal. They should be in the old Cosa Nostra mode and close mouthed. Take the 5th.

aggiehawg said:

---

TRM said:

---

I assume Joffe defrauding the govt is next on their checklist. Conspiracy next if they get a guilty verdict?

---

Hell if I know. Unsure of which building blocks Durham has and which building blocks he still needs for any sealed indictments...or potential new ones.

Then there is also the possibility that he could use their voluntary testimony in this trial as acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, extending Statutes of Limitations. That could also include the efforts of the Hillary campaign to thwart Durham in this trial. Still pursuant to an original conspiracy?

Lots of strategy in different directions are possible right now. Why it is jaw dropping to me why any of these a-holes are testifying without an immunity deal. They should be in the old Cosa Nostra mode and close mouthed. Take the 5th.

---

Any chance any of those sealed documents are deals for some of the players who are going to testify?

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TRM said:

---

I assume Joffe defrauding the govt is next on their checklist. Conspiracy next if they get a guilty verdict?

---

Hell if I know. Unsure of which building blocks Durham has and which building blocks he still needs for any sealed indictments...or potential new ones.

Then there is also the possibility that he could use their voluntary testimony in this trial as acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, extending Statutes of Limitations. That could also include the efforts of the Hillary campaign to thwart Durham in this trial. Still pursuant to an original conspiracy?

Lots of strategy in different directions are possible right now. Why it is jaw dropping to me why any of these a-holes are testifying without an immunity deal. They should be in the old Cosa Nostra mode and close mouthed. Take the 5th.

---

Any chance any of those sealed documents are deals for some of the players who are going to testify?

---

Good question. I haven't seen sealed immunity agreements outside of Mafia cases with people in witness protection programs. They may exist but again not common usage outside of RICO because of the confrontation clause.

Faking the illusion of immunity agreements with co defendants is not unusual in criminal prosecutions. Originally bring charges against a low level defendant, then inexplicably drop the charges and the reaction is that person gets eliminated. New charges against the higher target. But again, usually organized crime related.

But we have the Clintons involved here, so organized crime similarities cannot be discounted out of hand.

I am getting so used to disappointment and disgust with our federal justice system that I hope, after all of this time, that Durham doesn't toss a softball here that is just swatted away.

New DOJ Notes Reveal FBI Panic After Trump Tweeted He Knew He Was Being Spied On

The real bombshells are in pages of notes that Sussmann doesn’t cite; those notes reveal true extent of the FBI’s panic over Trump’s tweet.

New from @HansMahncke & Myselfhttps://t.co/vvPe4pdCgj

— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) May 9, 2022

Interesting article noting how Strzok pushed a misleading narrative inside DOJ/FBI meetings @FOOL_NELSON @TrustIsEarnd @MonsieursGhost @UndeadFoia https://t.co/cTZKF459iH

— Daniel (@daniel_errico) May 9, 2022

Is it possible some of those Dem jackwagons have gotten so arrogant they believe they'll have Dem privilege like most Dems for the last six years?

I agree with you 100%, but pride goeth before the fall, or something like that. I just don't understand what these walking sphincters are thinking.

If this goes to a DC jury, how can anybody have a good feeling about what's going to come out of this. Somebody please help me feel more upbeat about all this.

As usual, I'm not the one you want to hear from, but keep the faith.

Unless the Dems tamper with the jury, which is always a good possibility because no Republicans would follow up, then I bet Durham comes through----at least on Sussman.

All bets are off after that.

If Durham loses at trial, I can see Garland using it as a reason for shutting this whole thing down. The SC's office has a lot riding on the outcome of this case, IMO.

fasthorse05 said:

---

As usual, I'm not the one you want to hear from, but keep the faith.

Unless the Dems tamper with the jury, which is always a good possibility because no Republicans would follow up, then I bet Durham comes through----at least on Sussman.

All bets are off after that.

---

My problem is dems on a DC jury are not going to be trustworthy.

Correct me if I'm wrong attorneys, but if they played the conspiracy charge card, they could have filed in Georgia because of the GT researchers and avoided DC.

It all seemed like a 'slam dunk' a cpl days ago...even hints of a RICO case. Can't help but think the whole system is gamed. Too much suspense and swing in emotions for ole folks.

Thread.

2/ LOL. Denied. pic.twitter.com/K3nBzey2u0

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 10, 2022

Judge Gives Ample Leeway to Prove Sussmann Lied to FBI but Limits Durham’s ‘Joint Venture’ Evidence https://t.co/OfchesIF2g

— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) May 10, 2022

The sacrifice has been chosen. The rest will be spared and protected.

Three Friends Chatting: How the Steele Dossier Was Created
Report that rattled the political world often echoed talk among three acquaintances, including the main investigator and an old schoolmate. Hours after the publication in early 2017 of a dossier claiming President-elect Donald Trump conspired with Russia to steer the U.S. election, a public relations executive in Washington tapped out an email to a client whose company was cited in the document, cast as a villain.

"I'm hoping that this is exposed as fake news," Charles Dolan Jr. wrote. "I will check with some folks in the intel world to see if they know who produced this." The dossier, published by BuzzFeed News, used code names to conceal its sources.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-surprising-backstory-of-how-the-steele-dossier-was-created-11652103582

"Info came from NYT" https://t.co/qYyfKlIgcQ pic.twitter.com/C8R6aFHsOf

— FoiaFan (@15poundstogo) May 10, 2022

Interesting that nobody is coming out to deny Dagon/Manos assisted the Mueller investigation.

If it wasn’t significant, what is Manos so scared of? pic.twitter.com/wQ48iWAgGf

— UndeadFOIA (@UndeadFoia) May 10, 2022

https://t.co/VRtph5rMum

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 10, 2022

TRM said:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong attorneys, but if they played the conspiracy charge card, they could have filed in Georgia because of the GT researchers and avoided DC.

---

That would be a different case. Sussman's crime was committed in DC. Thus that is the venue for this case.

Baker testified that at the meeting in Sept. 2016, Sussmann said “the press” have this. He didn’t say NYT at that time. Baker’s impression was that “they” had given it to the press.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 10, 2022

In the call Sussmann told Baker it was the NYT. Baker asked Sussmann to ask the NYT to hold off publishing the story to give the FBI more time to investigate. [I don’t think it was asked but I’m willing to bet there was talk about agreeing that NYT would get an exclusive].

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 10, 2022

I know I am probably begging here, but could Marc Elias be getting setup as the stooge. Reading this article makes me think the power brokers have agreed on the sacrificial lamb.

Marc Elias Article

Quote:

---

"His strategy often backfires since many of the cases are weak or frivolous. Some of Elias's allies on the left criticize his strategy and judgment."

---

Quote:

---

He has run into trouble on substance, too, blundering into a major defeat in the Supreme Court in 2021 that some critics say was entirely of his own making.
......
The Court's decision in Brnovich v. DNC played out exactly as liberals feared. Justice Samuel Alito delivered a 6-3 decision that upheld Arizona's rules, announced new limits on the Voting Rights Act challenges, and in so doing put new red-state election regulations on firmer footing. Democrats saw the ruling as an unmitigated catastrophe.
.....
Richard Hasen, a progressive voting rights guru at the University of California Irvine, describes the case as an "overreach" and took Elias to task at his Election Law Blog, an influential forum for reporters and election lawyers.

"I get lots of messages from election lawyers and professors complaining about Marc but reluctant to voice their criticisms publicly," Hasen wrote.

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

I know I am probably begging here, but could Marc Elias be getting setup as the stooge. Reading this article makes me think the power brokers have agreed on the sacrificial lamb.

Marc Elias Article

Quote:

---

"His strategy often backfires since many of the cases are weak or frivolous. Some of Elias's allies on the left criticize his strategy and judgment."

---

Quote:

---

He has run into trouble on substance, too, blundering into a major defeat in the Supreme Court in 2021 that some critics say was entirely of his own making.
......
The Court's decision in Brnovich v. DNC played out exactly as liberals feared. Justice Samuel Alito delivered a 6-3 decision that upheld Arizona's rules, announced new limits on the Voting Rights Act challenges, and in so doing put new red-state election regulations on firmer footing. Democrats saw the ruling as an unmitigated catastrophe.
.....
Richard Hasen, a progressive voting rights guru at the University of California Irvine, describes the case as an "overreach" and took Elias to task at his Election Law Blog, an influential forum for reporters and election lawyers.

"I get lots of messages from election lawyers and professors complaining about Marc but reluctant to voice their criticisms publicly," Hasen wrote.

---

---

It is amazing how much time the rightwing media spends on stories that alternate between: I am an all-powerful evil genius and I am completely ineffective.

The truth is I am just a lawyer fighting for democracy while living rent free in their heads.😎https://t.co/i2myfKcUvs

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) May 10, 2022

Quote:

---

The truth is I am just a lawyer fighting for democracy while living rent free in their heads.

---

Elias is just being a pompous arrogant pr*ck as always who thinks he's untouchable, completely leaving out the particularly notable truth is that he's being called by Durham as a prosecutorial witness in the Sussmann case.