Pediatricians call it “breath-holding spells.” It was when children hold their breath when upset until they experience syncope, or passing out. The media in Washington appears close to a collective faint over the recent filings of Special Counsel John Durham. While the media has largely buried or downplayed the disclosures by Durham on the origins of the Russian conspiracy claims, Durham keeps adding new details implicating top Democratic figures in what he describes as an ongoing investigation. You can only hold your breath so long and Durham shows no signs that he is done by a long shot.
The latest disclosures by Durham are difficult for many in the media to cover because they directly refute years of prior coverage. Many in the media lampooned Donald Trump for claiming that the FBI and the Clinton campaign spied on Trump Tower and his campaign. Yet, we later learned that the FBI did spy on the campaign. In 2020, the media largely ignored that finding.
That is when the first stage of syncope began: the “prodrome” with signs of media “discomfort, extreme fatigue, weakness, yawning, nausea, dizziness, and vertigo.”
Now, Durham has told a court that he has evidence that Clinton operatives “exploited” access to systems at the Trump Tower, Trump’s apartment building, and “the Executive Office of the President of the United States.” While Durham does not use the term “spying,” he states that the operation allegedly targeted the campaign and the Trump Tower as well as the Executive Office in acquiring Domain Name System (DNS) data that can reveal server contacts and searches.
We are now in the second syncopal phrase: loss of media consciousness.
There is no way to cover this story without many admitting that it facilitated a false narrative created by the Clinton campaign, including attacking those who suggested that the Clinton campaign would ever engage in such disreputable conduct.
The case itself remains a single false statement (much like some of the charges brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller). It is not an easy case to prove. However, the details emerging in the case are filling in gaps on how the Clinton Campaign’s funded and directed the development of the now debunked narrative of a conspiracy between Russian and the Trump campaign. What is also notable in the filing is the extent to which the Clinton campaign used lawyers to carry out this work, including hiding its funding while denying connections to the work of figures like Christopher Steele.
The new information was revealed in a filing raising conflicts of interest in the law firm of Latham Watkins, which is representing indicted former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann. The firm has represented other Clinton related figures. It was a fitting objection in a case where a circle of Democratic lawyers and law firms have featured prominently as well as the liberal think tank, Brookings Institution. The cross pollination of these law firms is one of the least discussed elements in the scandal.
The Durham filings repeatedly return to the work of Perkins Coie, a firm with a long and deep connection to the Democratic Party. The Clinton campaign reportedly used a screen of lawyers to hide that it was behind the Russian conspiracy claims.
The key to many of these operations is someone referred to by Durham as “Campaign Lawyer-1,” who is widely believed to the then Perkins partner and Clinton Campaign General Counsel Marc Elias. Elias was called before the grand jury. It was Elias who made the key funding available to Fusion GPS, which in turn enlisted Steele to produce his now discredited dossier on Trump and his campaign. The firm listed the payouts as “legal fees.”
During the campaign, a few reporters did ask how the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. It was only weeks after the election that journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign allegedly hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Elias also reportedly sat next to campaign chair John Podesta when he also reportedly denied the connection.
Sussmann was indicted for allegedly hiding his representation of the Clinton Campaign as he spread a different Russian collusion allegation involving the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank. (Elias is also referenced in meetings on that operation). Sussmann filed a response this week and asked the Court to strike the entirety of the factual section of the Durham filing as unsubstantiated and sensational. (That could open the door for Durham in response to substantiate these claims even further).
Durham added details showing how Perkins Coie used its attorney-client relationships to further the Russian conspiracy operation for the campaign. He alleges that Elias and Sussmann enlisted an Internet executive, Rodney Joffe, to help build the foundation for the claims. Joffe alerted Sussmann about the Alfa Bank claims by July 2016, and “over the ensuing weeks, and as part of their lawyer-client relationship,” Sussmann and Joffe “engaged in efforts with Campaign Lawyer-1 .”
The use of lawyers to shield such work is nothing new in Washington. During the Nixon Administration, lawyers were used extensively to maintain slush funds and enable “dirty trick” operations.
What is striking about the Durham filings is the audacity of the Perkins Coie operation. While the funding was buried away, the lawyers were seemingly unconcerned about approving such efforts or personally reaching out to sympathetic government and media figures. They were, to some degree, justified in their sense of immunity.
Indeed, to this day, many refuse to cover extensive evidence of how the Clinton campaign manufactured this story that largely occupied the entire term of President Donald Trump. Before the Steele dossier was given to the FBI and the press, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” That operation appears to have been launched through Elias and Perkins Coie.
After the 2020 election, Democratic members and legal experts demanded the disbarring of a host of Republican attorneys for their spreading disinformation of a widespread election fraud. These same figures, however, are entirely silent about the role of Clinton lawyers in secretly funding the debunked Russian collusion claims. There is no interest in whether, as alleged by reporters, figures like Elias lied about the involvement of the Clinton campaign.
Sussmann is now facing a trial on his allegedly false statement. Elias remains unindicted. With little sense of irony, he has established a law firm to deal with ethics and campaign disclosures.
Durham’s continued investigation may be pushing the media to the final stage called “postsyncope,” which involves “protracted confusion, disorientation, nausea, dizziness, and a general sense of poor health.” That has reflected in the flailing effort by some to deflect from the alarming disclosures. New York Times reporter Mike McIntire seemed to express alarm that the Durham story was “trending.” However, McIntire offered “a periodic reminder that Trump’s campaign chairman secretly met and shared info with a Russian intelligence agent.” The “info” was polling data on the campaign that Paul Manafort gave a person with Russian intelligence ties.
That, of course, has no relevance to the question of whether the Clinton Campaign spied on the Trump Tower, campaign, or the White House itself. The “periodic reminder” seemed to be to other media that they needed to continue to hold their breath and not recognize a major story. Such “protracted confusion” is natural, but it will not dissipate any time soon. Durham apparently is calling more people into the grand jury.
[Note: the original column said that Sussman “hired” Joffe. It was changed to “enlisted” because there is no confirmation that he was actually paid for this work. Joffe reportedly said that he was promised a top job in a Clinton Administration and he was previously a client at Perkins Coie.]
I don’t recall.
“I can’t remember, my brain’s in a blender, it’s jello”.
– Hillary Clinton, INHC20082016, SuperMax, Florence
Mozart composed the Magic Skin Flute.
Looking forward to the day when Durham calls HRC to testify before the grand jury
The crimes committed today by Democrats and the Woke without punishment are beyond belief. Examine an earlier Democrat, Chicago Mayor Richard Daly. He ended looting quickly. Listen to this staunch Democrat and how he solved problems.
Well … I wish Him Luck [Mr. Durham].
It’s a Hell-of-a-Job, that’s Thankless & hard to do it Honestly.
It’s time for the rest of the America to catch up to the truth about mainstream media that I have been saying for decades. Journalism is dead. Today, except for small pockets of alternative media, journalism is dead and there are no journalists. There is only the presstitution industry and the presstitutes working in this industry. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding:
Earlier today, I made a comment that NONE of us here really knows what all the evidence is out there. I also stated that prosecution/Durham need not produce this at the time of filing. This set off a flurry of challenges from ” Anonymous.” HERE is
the reference I cited:
18 U.S.C. 3500, et al.
(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States, no statement or report in the possession of the United States which was made by a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) shall be the subject of subpoena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case.
No one disputes that we don’t know ALL the evidence.
Do you have any interest whatsoever in discussing the evidence that’s already public? (You’ve been studiously avoiding that all day.)
Here is the exchange:
Anonymous says:
February 15, 2022 at 1:07 PM
“I would suggest that NONE of us knows what evidence is out there.” [quoting lin]
I’m flabbergasted that you’d suggest that.
Do you truly believe that absolutely no evidence has been presented in Durham’s filings? Just what do you think is the basis for the Sussman indictment if it’s not evidence?!?
Reply
lin says:
February 15, 2022 at 1:31 PM
Anomaly: Neither you nor I know what evidence is out there that is not revealed in the Sussman indictment. Neither exculpatory nor impeachment evidence, among other, need be disclosed at this stage. See 18 USC 3500 et al.
lin, do you understand the difference between
a) your original claim “NONE of us knows what evidence is out there,” and
b) your later claim “NONE of us here really knows what all the evidence is out there”?
That word “all” significantly impacts the meaning. Your original claim is false: we know a lot of the evidence out there. Your later claim is true and extremely obvious: we don’t know ALL the evidence.
Once again: Do you have any interest whatsoever in discussing the evidence that’s already public? (You’ve been studiously avoiding that all day.)
And here is my previous response:
lin says:
February 15, 2022 at 2:32 PM
P.s.as an expert, you should know that “what evidence” refers to the whole/corpus- the entire body of evidence that exists-whether currently known to parties/counsel (and known OR not known to us), or discovered in the future. Your attempted extraction of SOME of that evidence “outside of the Sussman indictment” does NOT make my statement false.
lin, I responded to your 2:32 PM comment hours ago: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/15/media-vapors-how-special-counsel-john-durham-has-triggered-a-media-meltdown/comment-page-1/#comment-2159026
Once again: Do you have any interest whatsoever in discussing the evidence that’s already public? (You’ve been studiously avoiding that all day.)
“Do you have any interest whatsoever in discussing the evidence that’s already public? (You’ve been studiously avoiding that all day.)”
That should not be what you should be talking about. Here is the question that needs an answer. Liars and deceitful people resort to parsing words and wasting time. Honest people answer the question:
Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
IDGAF what you opinion is about my choice to discuss the Sussman docket (which is, after all, the focus of Turley’s column).
You are a big talker until you have to say something.
Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
Again, ATS, you are engaging in foolishness. The first question is.
Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
ATS is slinging BS and refuses to answer the most basic question.
S. Meyer: Geez, he just doesn’t quit, does he? More flailing about, deflection, changing subjects. I’m glad you are there as well.
Thanks Lin. People have to learn that he sounds like a fool. Then they might learn not to be fools themselves.
No, lin, the subject I’ve been discussing all along is the evidence related to the Sussman docket: evidence from Durham’s filings, evidence from Sussman’s filings, evidence from Sussman’s previous testimony under oath.
You and Meyer are the ones who are deflecting, flailing about, changing the subject. You and he are alike in several ways, including your indulgence in childish name-calling.
Anonymous the Stupid writes to Lin saying “You and Meyer are the ones who are deflecting,..”
Nope. You refuse to answer a simple basic question. Why? Because you are a liar and a time waster.
Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
S. Meyer, lin, you both are being deliberately disingenuous with anonymous. He’s literally discussing facts derived directly from Durham’s and Sussman’s filings. Both of you are clearly avoiding discussion of the present evidence in the filings. Anonymous IS correct here. He’s not wrong.
S. Meyer your stupid question is nothing more than a desperate attempt at deflection from the facts of what Durham and Sussman are actually saying.
Your “simple question” is pure garbage and then to accuse anonymous of being a liar without proof of what exactly he says is a lie is just you being liar yourself.
Lin, obviously you are straining to avoid just discussing the facts right in front of you, PUBLICLY known facts presented in Durham’s and Sussman’s filings. It’s absolutely hilarious just seeing the amount of effort out forth but both you and S. Meyer to avoid it even acknowledge the facts before your very eyes.
Anonymous has made a much more compelling analysis of what the real issue is about than the claims being made by most right leaning posters here.
Neither one of you are willing to discuss the facts, PUBLICLY KNOWN FACTS, presented in the actual filings? S. Meyer? Lin?
This is the one opportunity to practice those “critical thinking skills” you accuse others of lacking. So far you both have shown none other than name calling and insults.
Sussman didn’t work for free, and there are reasons behind his actions. The question in everyone’s mind is whether or not something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
You couldn’t get the vaccine story right, after the FDA material was placed in front of your nose, so why should anyone pay attention to you. They should search your previous comments to get the full picture. You are a waste of time.
Anonymous ATS (S. Meyer),
“ Sussman didn’t work for free, and there are reasons behind his actions. The question in everyone’s mind is whether or not something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?”
S. Meyer, your “question” has nothing to do with the issue brought up by Turley. It’s completely irrelevant.
It’s not a question in everyone’s mind. Just yours. You just want to go into a rabbit hole of constantly changing conspiracy theories instead of discussing an issue with publicly available facts. It’s harder for you to do that than the easy arguments you can make with conspiracy theories and BS.
Can’t you get into trouble for spying on the White House servers? I would think that would be some heavy s**t. Grab the popcorn and hire some security for John Durham and his family. Remember who we’re dealing with here. Oh, yeah..”lock her up.”
Durham hasn’t alleged that anyone was “spying on the White House servers.”
Maybe you should read what he actually said and what Sussman said in response: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
Fed, Fed, Fed!
Anonymous the Stupid, instead of throwing BS let’s hear what you have to say.
Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
It’s a fact that Durham hasn’t alleged that anyone was “spying on the White House servers.”
Maybe you should read what Durham actually said and what Sussman said in response: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
You are just living up to your name Anonymous the Stupid. You will discuss commas, slight differences in sentence structure and deal with all types of deceit, but when it comes to basics you are at a loss.
Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
I will discuss any of the evidence that has been presented by either party in the Sussman docket — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/ — as well as any evidence in factual discussions of that docket, such as Marcy Wheeler’s discussion of previous testimony by Sussman about the 2/2017 meeting when Sussman was interviewed under oath by the HPSCI in 2017: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/02/13/kash-patel-knew-and-did-nothing-about-the-latest-durham-related-frenzy/
So far, nothing you’ve said addresses the above.
What is the use of discussing minutia when you refuse to deal with the situation? You are stuck and can’t answer the question. That means you refuse to admit the problems that are being faced. You are dishonest.
Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
Talk to a therapist about your OCD.
I see you are very uncomfortable being forced to be straightforward.
Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
S. Meyer says,
“ What is the use of discussing minutia when you refuse to deal with the situation? You are stuck and can’t answer the question. That means you refuse to admit the problems that are being faced. You are dishonest.”
S. Meyer you dumba$$. He’s literally telling you exactly what you are asking. He’s asking you to discuss the facts directly from the source.
You’re the one who is refusing to deal with the situation completely.
Anonymous is literally giving you the links to the actual documentation that is at the heart of the issue and you’re making sad pathetic excuses to avoid a legitimate discussion. It is more likely that you are unable to understand what the filings are saying. It makes more sense. You don’t want to expose your inability to really understand what the filings are saying and instead engage in childish name calling and projecting your own issues onto others.
You’ve called anonymous a liar. Point out exactly what it is that he is lying about. It shouldn’t be that hard to bring up what you seem to be lies. What are they? Let’s compare them to the facts presented in the actual documentation that has been provided to you.
Svelaz, you can’t remember from one post to the next. The question was simple, and it is the question that surrounds all the minutia you or Anonymous the Stupid sees fit to print. The minutia is meaningless when one is trying to stop the discussion based on a comma or a period.
Go back and tell us about the approval of vaccines. Better yet, let’s visit your prior flubs since when your name comes up, there is invariably a flub.
S. Meyer,
“ Svelaz, you can’t remember from one post to the next. The question was simple, and it is the question that surrounds all the minutia you or Anonymous the Stupid sees fit to print. The minutia is meaningless when one is trying to stop the discussion based on a comma or a period.
Go back and tell us about the approval of vaccines. Better yet, let’s visit your prior flubs since when your name comes up, there is invariably a flub.”
S. Meyer, your question has nothing to do with the facts direct from the filing. None. You WANT to deflect to that irrelevant question because it gives you the opportunity to dig into a rabbit hole of your own creation.
You keep stating that anonymous is lying and that he is not discussing the problem when he’s literally doing just that. You are deliberately avoiding what YOU are accusing him of not doing when he is.
I’m not going to go into another one of your rabbit holes to discuss an argument you lost multiple times. You couldn’t make a distinction between a common label and an official label of the vaccine. Heck you can’t even tell the difference between anonymous posters here either.
Is the claim that the Hillary Clinton campaign spied on the White House? Yes or no? What evidence do you have or don’t have to support such a claim? Did Durham make such a claim in his filing? Yes or no?
” your question has nothing to do with the facts direct from the filing. None. You WANT to deflect to that irrelevant question because it gives you the opportunity to dig into a rabbit hole of your own creation.”
No! It demonstrates you are a waste of time because you are an illiterate and lazy. Add to the top of that you lie even in the face of proof.
“Is the claim that the Hillary Clinton campaign spied on the White House? Yes or no? What evidence do you have or don’t have to support such a claim? Did Durham make such a claim in his filing? Yes or no?”
Are you able to add 2+2?
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ No! It demonstrates you are a waste of time because you are an illiterate and lazy. Add to the top of that you lie even in the face of proof.”
S. Meyer, you are literally afraid to get into a legitimate discussion of the facts brought forth in Durham’s and Sussman’s filings.
You can’t accuse me of lying when you’re the one avoiding the evidence to prove me wrong. You won’t even go near it. It’s strange that the deem it a waste of time but still engage in avoiding the issue and asking completely irrelevant questions.
Come on man, what are you afraid of? That you might discover that anonymous was correct? That’s the worst that could happen? Really?
Sam,
You don’t have to add 2+2 to conclude that Durham is NOT alleging “that the Hillary Clinton campaign spied on the White House.”
As I pointed out to Ray yesterday:
Sussman had already testified under oath that his Feb. 9, 2017 meeting was about [DNS] data from 2016, and he’d been trying to schedule that meeting since Dec. of 2016:
Sussman: I remember what | was going to say. It was — it was, in large part, in response to President Obama’s post-election IC review of potential Russian involvement in the election. And in that regard, I had made outreach prior to the change in administration, in 2016. And for reasons known and unknown to me, it took a long time to — or it took — you know, it took a while to have a meeting, and so it ended up being after the change in administration. But —
Kash Patel: When did you first reach out to [redacted agency] in this regard?
Sussman: Probably early December, or sometime in December.
Patel: 2016?
Sussman: 2016.
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ms53.pdf, p. 30
The indictment also says that Sussman provided the CIA with “multiple data files containing purported DNS data, ranging from 2016 through early 2017.” So Durham has confirmed that this data is mostly or exclusively from Obama’s term. We don’t know whether “early 2017” and prior to the 2/9/2017 meeting date includes anything after Trump was inaugurated, but Joffe’s contract was under the Obama Admin, not the Trump Admin, so unless there’s explicit evidence that the contract continued under Trump, there’s no reason to think that it continued under Trump.
Durham has already stipulated that Joffe’s firm was employed by the Obama WH: “Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP.”
So no, Clinton’s Campaign did not pay for Joffe’s work. The Obama WH paid for Joffe’s work, and if there was “spying” (which Durham does not allege), it’s the Obama WH that was spied on. No doubt that’s why Durham does not allege that the WH was spied on.
FFS, if you’re going to discuss the case, do some reading and learn some of the relevant details instead of asking stupid questions like “Are you able to add 2+2?” Maybe you’re the one who cannot do basic math.
Anonymous,
I do have one issue that I think the Durham filing is really about.
Since he is arguing that there is a conflict of interest with the law firm representing Sussman. It seems more a legal tactic to remove an effective legal representation. Based on what Marcy Wheeler is saying it seems like Durham really has no real evidence to show. By removing the law firm which has extensive knowledge about the issue it would give Durham a better opportunity to manipulate the facts as he is doing with these claims of “spying” being proven.
Durham seems to be trying to manipulate the narrative by tacitly encouraging the false narrative that is currently being claimed about The Hillary campaign “spying” on the White House despite the fact that Obama is still president at the time.
Depriving Sussman of the knowledge the firm has and its effective arguments seems to be the goal.
I love when you use words to demonstrate your lack of intellect.
Svelaz, it’s certainly possible that Durham doesn’t want Latham and Watkins representing Sussman.
But that’s not what Sussman’s lawyers present as the main goal of Durham’s motion. In their response, they say “To the extent that the Special Counsel intended to bring potential conflicts of interest to the Court’s attention and request that Mr. Sussmann waive those issues on the record, Mr. Sussmann does not oppose the Motion. Unfortunately, the Special Counsel has done more than simply file a document identifying potential conflicts of interest. Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.”
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/36/united-states-v-sussmann/
They conclude the response with “Mr. Sussmann respectfully requests that the Court (i) allow him to proceed with his current counsel of choice, Latham & Watkins LLP, following his waiver of any potential conflicts of interest, and (ii) strike the Factual Background portion of the Motion.” Now it’s up to the judge to rule on it.
Sussman’s lawyers also indicate that they’ll move to have the case dismissed (no surprise): “Mr. Sussmann reserves all rights to submit appropriate motions and seek appropriate relief concerning this conduct should the Indictment not be dismissed and should the case proceed to trial…” I’m not sure why they haven’t done that yet, perhaps they’re waiting for Durham to produce the rest of the material that he’s required to hand over to them (in late January, the judge ruled that “The Special Counsel’s 33 request to extend the deadline to produce any residual discovery materials resulting from its ongoing review to March 18, 2022, is hereby GRANTED”), but that’s just a guess.
“Durham hasn’t alleged that anyone was ‘spying on the White House servers.’”
In a sophistical way, you are correct.
He only used countless descriptions of and synonyms for the word “spying.”
Sam,
“ “Durham hasn’t alleged that anyone was ‘spying on the White House servers.’”
In a sophistical way, you are correct.
He only used countless descriptions of and synonyms for the word “spying.”
Who was in the White House at the time? Trump or Obama?
“Who was in the White House at the time? Trump or Obama?”
Which time — when it (allegedly) started or when the now-spying (allegedly) continued?
(That’s a rhetorical question.)
In other words, you won’t answer the question, even though the “time” is obviously the period that Durham has referred to in the documents and that Sussman has already testified about under oath: the period when Joffe’s firm was employed by the Obama WH “to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP” (quoting Durham’s description).
Do tell us: according to you, when did “the now-spying (allegedly) continue” until, and what is your evidence for that?
You forgot to use your Svelaz profile
I’m not Svelaz, as should be obvious from both my name and the content of my comment.
BTW, it’s interesting that you choose to pretend to be Svelaz, when you clearly aren’t.
That wasn’t anonymous and it wasn’t me either. Whoever posted as the impostor “Svelaz” was most likely S. Meyer who is known for changing his handle quite often.
SVELAZ
You are pretty Stupid, Svelaz. The individual created a unique identifier to identify him by his icon. It wasn’t me. I use S. Meyer with my unique identifier. For dolts, I use an anonymous icon; however, if you wish me to use multiple handles, I will consider doing so. Almost all my posts under anonymous are generally easily identified as coming from me. I want you to know where the post comes from. I never used another person’s alias, but I don’t think I could ever post under your name, which is surrounded by ignorance.
SM
Anonymous,
“ Unfortunately, the Special Counsel has done more than simply file a document identifying potential conflicts of interest. Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.”
I seems more likely that was Durham’s intention. Especially tainting any potential jury pool. Given how much attention the “spying” claims are getting it may have served its purpose even if the judge strikes down the false allegations Durham included in the filing.
Sam,
I’ve read the indictment and the recent motion (and a bunch of other documents), and I didn’t see the “countless descriptions of and synonyms for the word ‘spying’” that you allege were used. You’ve made the claim, and you’re the one with the burden of proof for it. If your allegation is true, it should be extremely easy for you to quote a few of these “countless descriptions of and synonyms for the word ‘spying’” that you allege were used. Unless you provide evidence for it, though, it’s simply an evidenceless allegation on your part.
I think you’re imagining them, perhaps because you’ve never bothered to learn relevant details of the case.
As a start, do you understand that the EOP Durham was referring to is the Obama EOP, not the Trump EOP? If you don’t understand that extremely basic fact, see my 10:37 AM response to you this morning, quoting both the indictment and Sussman’s previous testimony under oath.
“I think you’re imagining them, perhaps because you’ve never bothered to learn relevant details of the case.”
We understand, ATS. You have read every detail of the case, along with every misplaced comma and coffee stain. We know you read thousands of pages an hour because you have told us that in many different ways. You read while on the toilet, while eating, while dressing and while sleeping. You have all the data in your head. The only thing you are missing is the big picture. Do you recognize that something very bad happened and started at the top of the Clinton campaign, filtering through multiple law firms to hide wrongdoing?
“Remember who we’re dealing with here.”
– Bob Lawblaw
___________
Arkancide perhaps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkan
Date for ballistic demise is known.
Alas, the task is great.
There are not enough guillotines in the realm, Your Hillaryness!
Anybody else feel it coming together? Lock her up!
🤙
“A pox on both their houses!”
— from R&J
We may actually see Karma bounce back in this lifetime. I sincerely wish that for Hilary.
“Vapours” led to a prolific composer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Paisiello
whose flute concerti, of doubtful authenticity according to the anonymous wiki author, see above, I am now listening to a recording of. This was selected for me by the magic of YouTube choosing what to play next.
I had thought I knew the history of the classical music period fairly well but Paisiello never made an appearance. Genuine or not, the recorded performance by G. Fermenti, flutist, is charming: Chamber Music with Flute, Vol.2.
Flute quartets; Fermenti is the principal flutist on this recording.
Oh, the other three instruments are the strings.
Keep your eyes on the string instrumentalists especially the Concertmaster. Their faces say it all. Yuja Wang is mesmerizing in playing Prokofiev’s Toccata, as an encore no less!
Or here
Impressive!
I just saw her in San Francisco. She’s great, but I got tickets to see Evgeny Kissin! That should be stupendous!
John Durham vs. The Deep Deep State
David vs. Goliath
John Durham will be an inordinately consequential and momentous figure in the history of mankind, or he will be a long-forgotten, insignificant wisp of Benedict Arnold.
Are you up to the task, Mr. Durham?
Will it be thirty pieces of silver?
“My mind is made up.
Don’t confuse me with the facts!”
versus
My mind is made up.
Don’t confuse me with the facts!
It was I.
For the formalists…
A narcissist is right, even when he’s wrong, right, Professor Buffoon?
In other syncope “media vapors” news:
“Joe Rogan’s use of the n-word is another January 6 moment”
February 13, 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20220213154811/https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/us/joe-rogan-n-word-blake-cec/index.html
(CNN)…what Rogan and those that defend him have done since video clips of him using the n-word surfaced on social media is arguably just as dangerous as what a mob did when they stormed the US Capitol on January 6 last year.”
Meanwhile….
BLM, left-wing journalist Democrat (but I repeat myself) tried to kill a Jew.
BLM activist charged in murder attempt of Jewish mayoral candidate
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-696614
Louisville police have charged Quintez Brown, a local political activist, in a shooting attack on Craig Greenberg, a Jewish Democrat running for mayor. Brown, 21, has been prominent in the city’s civil rights activism, including Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, and previously worked for the Louisville Courier Journal. He had recently announced a run for the city’s municipal council.
BLM protests were mostly peaceful. 2 billion in property damage. Ottawa protest is every phobic Trudeau can think of. Zero property damage, but they did do snow shoveling.
And cleaned bathrooms of the businesses that allowed them to use them.
(OT)
The jury in the Palin v the NYT case has found that the NYT is not liable. Unbeknownst to them, the judge had already determined that Palin had not met the “actual malice” standard. So the judge and the jury agree. Palin can appeal the case. Will she?
I find it interesting when I recall that the leftist on this forum called for long term imprisonment of General Flynn for lying to the FBI but they now say that there is nothing there when Sussman is accused of the same thing. Here is the transcript of the Flynn call. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6976-flynn-kislyak-transcripts/cd9e96e708a9b0c8ba58/optimized/full.pdf#page=1. The statement by Sussman saying that he wasn’t working for the Clinton campaign was an outright lie. He even billed the campaign for his time. Unlike the Russia investigation, the Durham investigation is dealing with reality.
Unlike the Russia investigation, the Durham investigation is dealing with reality.
The Democratic party unofficially became the Babylon Bee party the moment Adam Schiff read his “parody” of the Trump/Zelinski transcript into the congressional record.
I support people being charged if there’s good evidence that they made materially false statements to the FBI.
Sussman has been indicted for a statement he allegedly made to then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker on Sept. 19, 2016. The thing is: Baker didn’t take any notes, didn’t record the meeting, and said under oath that he doesn’t remember what Sussman told him about this:
Q: So when Mr. Sussman came to you to provide some evidence, you were not specifically aware that he was representing the DNC or the Hillary Clinton campaign at the time?
A. I don’t recall, I don’t recall him specifically saying that at the time.
So Durham’s evidence for Sussman having made a materially false statement to the FBI is pretty weak.
Anonymous, the FBI is required to take notes of their meetings. So Baker used the old “I can’t recall” standby. The same one that Comey used 245 times when testifying before Congress. Any good FBI agent is going to take notes if only as a CYA protection. If you recall the FBI said that they could not find Peter Strzok and Lisa Paige cellphones until they did. Having been aware of such occurrence’s one might think that if only for a short time you might hold off on your declaration of the truth. Even though you get burned again you just keep on touching the hot stove and wondering why it hurts.
The FBI General Counsel is not an FBI agent.
“Any good FBI agent ..”
Again: Jim Baker was not an FBI agent. He was the FBI General Counsel.
Details, details.
Sussman has been indicted for a statement he allegedly made to then-FBI General Counsel Jim Baker on Sept. 19, 2016. The thing is: Baker didn’t take any notes, didn’t record the meeting, and said under oath that he doesn’t remember what Sussman told him about this:
Now do General Flynn
Why?
Flynn was indicted for knowingly making materially false statements to two FBI agents who took notes. Their handwritten notes from the interview were even made public by Barr’s DOJ, with some redactions. Have you ever looked at those notes?
You will confuse them with facts. Durham, I believe could file an amended complaint yet
I’m not confused by facts.
Would you like to discuss any facts?
Steve Jobs was famously said to have a “reality distortion field” that he projected on people in conversations as he sold his latest vision. I think the DEM voters are subject to something similar. How else could they reconcile the facts that, almost daily, reveal their team actually does all the things they accuse the other team of? These are not stupid people, with a few exceptions. But they manage to get through the day without ever seeing their total and abject hypocrisy.
Newly obtained indictment documents prove that former presidential candidate and election integrity doubter Hillary Clinton successfully proved Trump’s collusion with Russians after she hired, worked with, bribed, sought counsel from, visited, made deals with, and colluded with the Russians.
https://babylonbee.com/news/hillary-clinton-proves-trumps-russian-collusion-by-colluding-with-russians
Got to love the Bee.
The last sentence of Professor Turley’s post is the most chilling for the Democrats. More people are being called to testify before the Grand Jury. You can bet that they are not happy with having to spend the money to lawyer up. Are they all ready to walk the plank for the Clintons? The path to the outcome will be something to behold.