Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaign’s False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate

Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges.  He is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as “not technically plausible” and “user created.” He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct. Finally, Durham offers further details on the involvement of Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and former British spy Christopher Steele in the alleged false claims.

Recently, Durham revealed extremely damaging evidence against Sussmann. However, this is the first full description of the Clinton associates refusing to cooperate under the Fifth Amendment. Durham noted that he gave immunity to an individual identified only as “Research 2.” He then noted that this was made necessary by the refusal to cooperate by key Clinton associates:
“The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 – over a month prior to the defendant’s Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2’s immunity in order to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendant’s meeting with the FBI.”
[Emphasis added] For his part, Sussmann and the Clinton associates have sought to use attorney-client privilege to keep evidence from Durham.
Durham also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele. Indeed, the new requested immunized testimony would come from a Tech executive who allegedly can share information on meetings with Elias and Steele.
The Alfa Bank hoax and Sussmann’s efforts paralleled the work of his partner Elias at the law firm Perkins Coie in pushing the Steele Dossier in a separate debunked collusion claim.  The Federal Election Commission recently fined the Clinton Campaign and the DNC for hiding the funding of the dossier as a legal cost by Elias at Perkins Coie.
“Durham notes that both the CIA and FBI were sent on an effective wild goose chase by the Clinton campaign. He notes that the government found the allegations to be manufactured and not even technically possible.  He refers to the CIA in the following passage:
Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.”
This dovetails with the statements of the Clinton associates themselves who were worried about the lack of support for the Russian collusion claims.  “Researcher 1” features prominently in those exchanges.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed “tech executive” allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed “university researchers” who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.” The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely “was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but ‘a red herring,’” according to the indictment.

“Researcher-1” repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, “How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

“Researcher-1” allegedly further warned, “We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?”

It appears that the “time to regroup” has passed with the issuance of immunity deals to compel testimony.

Here is the filing:

US-v-Sussmann-04162022-US-Filing

429 thoughts on “Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaign’s False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate”

  1. The outsider came to town and he bred so much hatred within the elites that we now see that our government is corrupt on both sides. Can we stop them from further damage or is this the end of the republic?

  2. If Biden resigns after the midterms, he’ll pardon Hell and its chief washroom attendant, Hunter Biden. Don’t get your hopes up for a just outcome.

    1. Now I’m not making a prediction here, but look at the circumstances:
      1. Biden is starting to look shaky, even by figurehead standards;
      2. If he dies in office, Kamala probably won’t pardon anybody;
      2a. The cost in political capital would be high and for what?
      2b. She hates Biden’s East Coast mafia and their backbiting;
      2c. Hillary is her number one rival.

      Joe pardons now or never, and if he does, he’s political toast anyway. Might as well “retire.”

  3. Well now, it seems that there are five good soldiers who refuse to snitch on the Democratic Party cartel. They know that the cartel will pay for there lawyers. They have been told that the Clintonistas have law enforcement in their back pockets (see FBI and CIA). They are sure that when its all over the cartel will welcome them back with open arms and a lucrative gig on MSNBC will assure their futures. The Clintonistas say “don’t worry we’s gotcha covered.” True that. Fist bump.

    1. When Roger Stone, John Eastman, Alex Jones, Michael Flynn, and Jeffrey Clark pled the 5th before the J6 Select Committee this year, were they also “five good soldiers who refuse to snitch” on the Trump cartel?

        1. You’re imagining things. I doubt that I’ve previously said anything about Alex Jones, Michael Flynn, and Jeffrey Clark pleading the 5th before the J6 Select Committee this year, and I didn’t refer to any of them as “good soldiers who refuse to snitch.”

        1. Ti T, I didn’t post a “defense.” I asked you a question that you refused to answer.

          1. Anonymous, it does remain to be seen if the Democrats who are claiming their fifth amendment rights will be received with open arms by the Democratic party. Please give us your honest assessment concerning their futures. You call on me to answer your question but whenever I ask you to admit that RussiaGate was a hoax I never get an answer from you. Even when I post a link to CNN in which they admit that RussiaGate was a hoax you never respond. Just so you that your memory can be refreshed I’ll post the link again. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html. If you like you could find the same admissions by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico Magazine. The operative phrase is “if you like”

            1. Ti T, I’m not sure what you’re using the name “RussiaGate” to mean.

              Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller — https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special — was not a “hoax,” nor based on a “hoax.”

              “a link to CNN in which they admit that RussiaGate was a hoax”

              It seems that by “RussiaGate,” you’re referring to the Steele Dossier. Is that what you mean by “RussiaGate”? If so, the Steele Dossier was not the predicate for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation or the Mueller investigation.

              “Please give us your honest assessment concerning their futures.”

              I have no idea who the “five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations” are, and unlike you, I don’t assume things about people based solely on their invocation of their 5th Amendment rights.

              1. “the Steele Dossier was not the predicate for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation or the Mueller investigation.”

                ATS is playing word games again. Mueller’s investigation was predicated on nothing because no matter what is said, ATS will respond that the investigation wasn’t predicated on that. It will be reasonably accurate, for the Mueller investigation had no basis after the first look, and there was no truthful predicate.

                Liars like Anonymous the Stupid use word games. That is their game.

                OK, Anonymous the Stupid, what was the Mueller investigation predicated on?

                ATS won’t answer, or he will attempt to deceive and change the subject.

                1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

                  You dishonestly pretend that people will do things in the future (“ATS will respond that the investigation wasn’t predicated on that,” “ATS won’t answer, or he will attempt to deceive and change the subject”). This is one of your favorite ways of trolling.

                  “there was no truthful predicate.”

                  The DOJ IG disagrees with you.

                  His conclusion is legally significant. Your personal opinion is not.

                  “what was the Mueller investigation predicated on?”

                  As IG Horowitz stated,
                  ““The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016 following the receipt of certain information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG). According to the information provided by the FFG, in May 2016, a Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos, “suggested” to an FFG official that the Trump campaign had received “some kind of suggestion” from Russia that it could assist with the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton {Trump’s opponent in the presidential election) and President Barack Obama.”
                  “On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation to determine whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating or cooperating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government to influence or interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. According to the opening Electronic Communication (EC), the investigation was predicated on intelligence from an FFG. … we concluded that the FFG information, provided by a government the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy, and describing a first-hand account from an FFG employee of a conversation with Papadopoulos, was sufficient to predicate the investigation.”

                  I’ve answered this question before. You’ve even read and responded to what I’ve quoted in the past. Here are some examples:
                  jonathanturley.org/2022/03/06/yes-foreign-fighters-in-ukraine-are-covered-under-the-geneva-conventions-as-combatants/comment-page-2/#comment-2164507
                  jonathanturley.org/2022/02/09/north-carolina-board-asserts-right-to-disqualify-madison-cawthorn-as-an-insurrectionist/comment-page-1/#comment-2157153
                  jonathanturley.org/2021/09/24/report-hunter-biden-sought-millions-to-help-unfreeze-libyan-assets-while-his-father-was-vice-president/comment-page-2/#comment-2125040

                  Because you are Meyer the Troll Liar, you insist I answer it yet again, and you lie about how I’ll respond. And because you are Meyer the Troll Liar, I doubt that you will admit that your predictions were wrong.

                    1. The crime is your engaging Anonymous trolls…oh but you argued that point last week, and this is now this week.

                    2. Properly predicated FBI investigations aren’t limited to crimes. Crossfire Hurricane was initiated as a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. If crimes are identified in the course of a counterintelligence investigation, the DOJ may indict. The Special Counsel’s investigation was also initiated as a counterintelligence investigation, and the Special Counsel statute (28 CFR 600) also authorizes investigation of certain criminal matters arising out of the jurisdiction established by the AG (or in this case, the DAG). Rosenstein’s letter appointing Mueller: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special

                  1. Let’s get it straight, Anonymous the Stupid. You dance around the facts.

                    “the Steele Dossier was not the predicate for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation or the Mueller investigation.”

                    ATS is playing word games again. Mueller’s investigation was predicated on nothing because no matter what is said, ATS will respond that the investigation wasn’t predicated on that. It will be reasonably accurate, for the Mueller investigation had no basis after the first look, and there was no truthful predicate.

                    There was no crime. All were predicated on lies. You will have to spell out the facts, but you won’t because the facts prove the lies you have supported all along.

                    We are dealing a person who hides under an anonymous name, uses deceit and hides behind fuzzy language that generally lacks facts.

                    1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, and here you are, demonstrating why you got the name Meyer the Troll Liar.

                      I already did spell out the facts. I quoted the predication finding from the DOJ IG, and as the DOJ then noted on May 17, 2017, “Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein today announced the appointment of former Department of Justice official and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to serve as Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters,” so the predication for the Special Counsel’s investigation was the same predication as for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation that it grew out of.

                      You simply don’t like these facts, so you deny them, and lie and insult some more. And no one should be surprised, because you often respond this way.

                    2. What you have just asserted is accurate – and that is exactly why it is criminally wrong.

                      Long before Mueller was appointed SC the predicate for Crossfire Huricane was falsified.

                      Rosenstein can cite all the false predicates he wants – the legitimate start or continuation of ANY investigation – much less and SC, requires a predicate that meets the requirements of the constitution and the 4th and 5th amendment.
                      Government may not investigate whatever it pleases.

                    3. Predication has a very complex timeline.

                      The First purported predication was the reported Andrew Downer claim that a drunken Papadoulis had told Downer he had foreknowledge of the DNC Emails. When actually interviewed by the FBI Downer’s pretty much all of this proved false. Papadoulis was not drunk, he did not have actual knowledge of anything, and the limited email reference he made was to the hope that the Basement Bathroom emails might surface.

                      A mistaken report regarding Papadoulis constituted very limited predication for a few weeks.

                      During that time – parts of the Steele Dossier were provided to the FBI, as well as the Alfa Bank stuff.

                      Alfa Bank fell apart quickly – While the FBI did not accept the CIA determination that it was a hoax, they did find it meaningless quickly.

                      Debunking the Steele Dossier took much longer – partly because The FBI was lied to about its source and therefore had more difficulty falsifying it. But By mid Jan. 2017 the entire Steel Dossier had been falsified.
                      That does not mean each claim had been investigated and proved bogus, but it did mean that by Jan. 2017 the FBI knew how the Steele Dossier was created and knew there were no real sources to any of the claims. And that means they were not sufficiently trustworthy to use as predication for an investigation.

                      There are a few other items that were used as predicates for brief periods, such as the Flynn Kislyak communications.

                      But all ceased to meet the lowest standard for predication according to DOJ guidelines.

                      I would note this very roughly is what Horowitz reported – that there was bare minimum predication from July through january.

                      Further we need to understand what predication means – or more accurately how the 4th and 5th amendments are understood by the courts, the DOJ and FBI. Predication does NOT mean true. But it does require not known to be false.

                      Further it is not binary. Opening a file, interviewing people, requesting records, subpeonaing, questioning subjects and targets ….

                      All require different levels of predication – this is why the FISA Warrant is so important. There NEVER was sufficient predication for the FISA court to approve a warrant. Nearly all searches require a warrant.

                      In conclusion – the reason Sussman is being prosecuted is because the credibility of the information he provided rested initially on the FBI’s understanding of where it came from. Lying about the source caused the FBI to beleive the investigation was predicated when it was not.

                      Beyond that All predication at all levels ended in early January – this was well documented – the FBI was going to close the investigation in late December for lack of predication but for Peter Strzok asking it to be held open.
                      Predication is NOT a judgement call it is a process and protocol within the FBI. The investigation should not have been held open as a curtesy to Strzok – absent Strzok providing additional predication.

                      Again all this happened in early january 2017.

                      Flynn was interviewed in late January – after the investigation was required to be closed.

                      Mueller was appointed LONG after there was no longer predication.

                      All the things we are finding out now were KNOWN or should have been know to Rosenstein when he appointed Mueller.

                      All MUST have been known to Mueller very shortly after.

                      Durham is being allowed to go after Sussman because the alternative is going after those in DOJ and Mueller for conducting an illegal investigation.

                      And this highlights one of my problems with government – every mistake it makes is always blamed on those outside of government.

                      Sussman’s misrepresentations are problematic. But the FBI/DOJ are responsible for their choices and for accepting Sussmans claims.

                      Rosenstein is responsible for an illegal SC investigation.

                      I have much more problems with Klinesmith’s conduct than Sussman’s – lying and altering evidence on a warrant application should have incredibly serious consequences. People were spied on and sent to jail for less.

                      Mueller knew or should have know quickly the allegations were crap and predication had already FAILED.

                      Hunter Biden is unethical and immoral – but what he was Selling was the power of the Vice PResident and that is on Joe Biden not Hunter.

                      I do not care if Joe never got a dime – he still sold out the country for his son’s profit.

                    4. John B Say (@johnbsay) says:
                      “When actually interviewed by the FBI Downer’s pretty much all of this proved false.”

                      You’re alleging that, but you haven’t provided any evidence to substantiate your allegation.

                      “all ceased to meet the lowest standard for predication according to DOJ guidelines. ”

                      You apparently believe that, but your opinion has no legal import. DOJ IG Horowitz’s opinion — which is different than yours — is legally significant, as are the opinions of the judges who ruled on the various cases, none of whom agree with you.

                      “In conclusion – the reason Sussman is being prosecuted is because the credibility of the information he provided rested initially on the FBI’s understanding of where it came from. Lying about the source caused the FBI to beleive the investigation was predicated when it was not.”

                      I don’t think Durham alleged that Sussmann lied about where the data came from, only about whether he was there on behalf of a client. Those two things are not the same. And the question of whether Sussmann knowingly made a material false statement — as alleged — has not yet been proven in court.

              2. You believe that hoaxes and lies are good predicates for investigation. OK, I’ll buy that. I like a person that stands up behind his lies. You are very consistent that way.

          2. Anonymous, John B Say makes a good point. Stone, Flynn, Jones and Clark plead the fifth before congress. Congress has no ability to charge anyone with a crime. The Democrats who are taking the fifth are involved in a Justice Department criminal investigation. The Congress is without teeth and can not put anyone in jail. The justice Department has the teeth and can put people in prison. The fifth amendments use in a criminal investigation is much more important than the use of the fifth amendment used before Congress. Good attempt at deflection but that dog don’t hunt. I will have to admit that your handlers have trained you well.

            1. “John B Say makes a good point.”

              No, John made an ignorant claim. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court has stated that “Each House of Congress has power to conduct an investigation in aid of its legislative functions, to compel attendance before it of witnesses and the production of books and papers which may throw light upon the subject of inquiry; subject, of course, to protection against the invasion of such privileges as those against unreasonable searches and seizures, self-incrimination and the like.”

              “Congress has no ability to charge anyone with a crime.”

              They’re not carrying out a criminal investigation, so your comment is irrelevant. They have the power to subpoena people to testify under oath about all sorts of things, including the J6 investigation, and they can make criminal referrals to the DOJ. The J6 Committee has already made 4 criminal referrals to the DOJ for contempt of Congress, and members have said that they may make additional criminal referrals.

              “The Congress is without teeth and can not put anyone in jail. The justice Department has the teeth and can put people in prison.”

              Only if they’re found guilty of a crime and sentenced to prison, or if a judge determines that the person should be held pending trial. The fact remains that Congress can and does make criminal referrals to the DOJ, so your attempted argument falls apart.

      1. What jan 6th commission ?

        Congress has GOVERNMENT oversight responsibility. It has no power to investigate anything but government.

        That is DOJ’s job and just as they have for the past 6 years – they are doing a piss poor job.

        Why would Roger Stone in particular ever voluntarily appear before congress again.
        The last time he did, he made a small mistake failing to recall exculpatory emails, was not given the required oportunity to correct his testimony – democrats classified his public ny ht atestimony and then refused to provide it.
        Then mueller and his band of angry democrats charged him with lying to congress and got a DC jury to convict him of things that even Mueller conceeds never happened.

        Why should ANYONE trust any congressional commitee run by democrats ?

        Do you remember Faux impeachment I ?

        Trump was impeached for asking Zelensky to investigate the corruption of the Bidens.
        Yet during the entire investigation it was verbotten to discuss whether there was any legitimate reason to investigate.

        What you had was a publicly conducted witch trial and attempted coup.

        Regardless, you are not going to persuade anyone of anything because some guys refuse to testify to another faux democratic house committee.

        REAL investigations will start in January.

        1. “[Congress] has no power to investigate anything but government.”

          That’s false. The Supreme Court has ruled that “Each House of Congress has power to conduct an investigation in aid of its legislative functions, to compel attendance before it of witnesses and the production of books and papers which may throw light upon the subject of inquiry; subject, of course, to protection against the invasion of such privileges as those against unreasonable searches and seizures, self-incrimination and the like.”

          Your personal opinion to the contrary has no legal significance. SCOTUS opinions do have legal significance.

          “Trump was impeached for asking Zelensky to investigate the corruption of the Bidens.”

          No, he was impeached because he “corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—
          “(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden; and
          “(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.”

          Soliciting a foreign national to make a campaign contribution in the form of public investigations is illegal (52 U.S. Code § 30121).

          “you are not going to persuade anyone of anything”

          I won’t convince people like you who have their minds closed to evidence that’s contrary to your preferred false narrative.

          1. Anonymous, please provide any sentence to prison for a crime that Congress has imposed. You have adequately explained that Congress can investigate but you fail to mention that they have no power to impose any penalty. On the other hand the Durham investigation can result in actual penalties against those who are found guilty. You still have not answered the question. Why are the Democratic witnesses before the Durham Grand Jury taking the fifth? This is what you always do. Refuse and then deflect. You refuse well but your deflections are of little quality.

            1. Again, Ti T, Congress and does make criminal referrals to the DOJ, which the DOJ may then act on. Bannon’s trial for criminal contempt of Congress starts this summer, and this time, Trump is not in office to pardon him.

              “the Durham investigation can result in actual penalties against those who are found guilty”

              Yes. We’ll have to wait and see whether a jury finds Sussmann guilty and whether Durham indicts anyone else.

              “Why are the Democratic witnesses before the Durham Grand Jury taking the fifth?”

              I don’t know. It’s bizarre that you’d assume I can read people’s minds. I don’t even know who they are. You don’t either, yet you’re assuming that they’re Democrats. Durham has not said this. Turley has not said this. All Durham said is that “at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination.” One of them is likely Rodney Joffe, the Tech-Executive-1 that Durham refers to. The Washington Examiner claimed that Joffe “appears to have referred to himself as “Max” in a 2018 article pushing the Alfa Bank claims. “Max” described himself as ‘a John McCain Republican.'”

              But go ahead and keep making a fool of yourself by assuming things you don’t know and demanding that I follow suit.

              1. Anonymous is lying. He has ‘such a good memory’ until he is put on the spot where he knows his only response can be a lie.

            2. I already answered.

              Now your turn: When Roger Stone, John Eastman, Alex Jones, Michael Flynn, and Jeffrey Clark pled the 5th before the J6 Select Committee this year, were they also “five good soldiers who refuse to snitch” on the Trump cartel?

              1. >>”please provide any sentence to prison for a crime that Congress has imposed.”
                >”I already answered.”

                That is a deceitful lie

                1. You are Meyer the Troll Liar, so you call my truthful statement “I already answered” — referring to the answer in my 3:10 PM reply — “a deceitful lie.”

                  As you often do, you project your own faults onto others.

                  1. You will waste time telling us you answered the question, but you didn’t.

                    >>”please provide any sentence to prison for a crime that Congress has imposed.”
                    >”I already answered.”

                    That is a deceitful lie.

                    It’s hard to tell which anonymous said what.

                    provide any sentence to prison for a crime that Congress has imposed.You made the mess anonymous at 3:10 and elsewhere. Clean it up.

                2. BTW, Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, perhaps you cannot read well enough to follow an exchange. Ti T said “You still have not answered the question. Why are the Democratic witnesses before the Durham Grand Jury taking the fifth?” when I had answered that question prior to my 3:13 PM comment.

                    1. I didn’t say that YOU asked that question, Anonymous the Stupid / Meyer the Troll Liar. If someone is confused here, it’s YOU.

                      My 3:10pm and 3:13pm comments were made to Ti T, not to YOU, idiot.

                      I answered Ti T’s question, idiot, and then I pointed out to Ti T (not you, idiot) that I’d answered his question and he should answer the question I’d asked him (not you, idiot).

                    2. You seem to think that wordpress is some private email system.

                      If you post a comment you invite everyone to respond.

                    3. John B Say (@johnbsay) says: “You seem to think that wordpress is some private email system.”

                      No, John, I don’t think that.

                      In fact, I’ve never signed up to get comments via email. I view comments on the web, so I can see the entire exchange.

                      You apparently either didn’t bother to read the full exchange in this subthread, or you tried and failed, whence your false conclusion quoted above.

                    4. I read the exchange.

                      WordPress is not private.
                      If you reply to a comment – ANYONE can respond to your reply.

                      Your reply is a word salad that makes clear YOU do not see the misunderstanding of the way a blog works self-evident in your own remarks.

                    5. John B Say (@johnbsay) says: “WordPress is not private. If you reply to a comment – ANYONE can respond to your reply.”

                      Duh.

                      I’m well aware that anyone who wishes can read the comments and anyone who wishes can reply, and I’ve never suggested otherwise.

                      “Your reply is a word salad”

                      No, John, my April 18, 2022, 4:01 PM reply to you was not a “word salad.” IF you didn’t understand my April 18, 2022 at 4:01 PM reply to you, THEN the fault lies with your understanding, not with what I wrote, which is clear.

          2. Anonymous, c’mon please. Joe Biden bribed the Ukraine to the tune of a billion dollars to stop the investigation of a Ukrainian oil company where his son was a board member and was being paid $83,000 per month. So Trump says they should investigate Burisma and Joe Biden says if you don’t drop the investigation “you don’t get the billion bucks.” Why wasn’t Joe Biden impeached?

            1. Biden wasn’t impeached because Congress approved.

              For example, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson said “The whole world — by the way, including the [Congressional] Ukranian caucus, which I signed the letter — the whole world felt that this that Sholkin wasn’t doing a [good] enough job. So we were saying hey you’ve … got to rid yourself of corruption.”
              https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464302-gop-senator-says-he-doesnt-remember-signing-2016-letter-urging-reform-of/

              He’s referring to a 2016 letter from a bipartisan group of Senators pushing “urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and Judiciary.”
              https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help

              Shokin wasn’t investigating Burisma.
              Firing Shokin made it MORE likely that Burisma would be investigated, the opposite of your false argument.
              You and I both know that you don’t care about the actual facts. You have a false story that you like, and you’ll stick with it.

  4. I’ll keep reminding everyone, Durham is barred by the AG from looking at government employees. More evidence the govt is part of the conspiracy.

    1. Barr appointed Durham, and if Barr had evidence that government employees committed federal crimes, nothing prevented Barr from indicting them.

          1. The scope of what?
            This is when you reveal your stupidity

            From my original comment

            “Durham is barred by the AG from looking at government employees. “

            1. iowan,

              You still haven’t presented any evidence to substantiate your claim that “Durham is barred by the AG [Garland] from looking at government employees,” and as I already pointed out, Durham indicted Clinesmith for actions Clinesmith took while working for the government.

              1. Cilnesmith pleaded guilty August19, 2020. When he still operated independently. When Garland was appointed, Garland barred him from investigating any govt employees. Garland has not released his scope memo.
                Clinesmith proves the obvious

                1. “When Garland was appointed, Garland barred him from investigating any govt employees.”

                  You keep claiming this, but you’ve presented no evidence that it’s true. You make a lot of false claims, so I do not take your word for it.

                  1. Garland has not released his scope memo. I doubt he ever will. You can figure why its a secret, you claim to be the expert.

                    1. “Now a prominent government watchdog, Judicial Watch, has revealed a lawsuit seeking to find out whether Garland has, or has not, been giving Durham orders.

                      The organization confirmed on Thursday it has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of communication between Durham and Garland.

                      The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the DOJ failed to respond to an August 23, 2021, FOIA request for “all records of communication, including emails and text messages, between Special Counsel John Durham and Attorney General Merrick Garland.”

                      The case also seeks information about Durham’s budget.”

                    2. So you have no evidence for your claim, you’re simply assuming it.

                      “you claim to be the expert.”

                      I did?!? Where?

                2. @IOWAN,

                  I think you’re going off the deep end here.

                  Unless you have a copy of the memo or any report that Garland is restricting Durham, you’re off base.

                  There are two major prongs to this investigation….

                  1) The Clinton Campaign and other outside actors who tried to pass bogus dirt on Trump and launched the whole ‘Russiagate’ investigation.
                  2) Government employees who may have been involved.

                  Now Durham has been quiet unless he had to make noise. If Durham was being impacted by Garland… that would be leaked in order to force Garland to back off.

                  Durham had to charge Sussman before statute of limitations ran out.
                  Now that he’s been charged… Durham is showing that there was a conspiracy.
                  With a conspiracy… the statute of limitations clock doesn’t start until the last act of the conspiracy ends.

                  So… here we sit.
                  The whole Russia collusion and now Alpha Bank conspiracy.
                  When did it end? (IMHO I don’t think you can say it ended because of the MSM… yet you could say it ended when the last lawsuit by the Alpha Banks exec ended.) Then its 5yrs post.

                  But… if we start to look at the overall conspiracy… I don’t think Durham is done looking or that the conspiracy is over…

                  -G

      1. That’s silly. He appointed Durham to gather evidence and present it in such a meticulous way that it would be legally sound. That takes more time than Barr had. This isn’t a TV show.

        1. Ahhhh but it is …..
          AN America Soap Opera!

          [Follow my post here on the: Boob-Tube Guide]

      2. It has taken 5 years to pry the truth out of many of these people.

        We had the deputy AG of the country fighting tooth and nail to protect these people for more than 2 years.

        We had Both President Obama and Vice President Biden actively involved in this hoax.

        We had large portions of government either complicit, participating or covering up the illegal conduct.

        Why has it taken 6 years to find out that the CIA established before the election that the Alpha Bank nonsense was a HOAX ?

        1. “Why has it taken 6 years to find out that the CIA established before the election that the Alpha Bank nonsense was a HOAX ?”

          Why are you assuming facts not in evidence?

          Durham claimed that the CIA “concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not ‘technically plausible,’ …”

          2017 was not “before the election” of 2016.

          We also do not know what Durham is quoting these phrases from, and what the entire sentences say.

          “We had Both President Obama and Vice President Biden actively involved in this hoax.”

          A claim you present no evidence of, and given that you cannot even keep straight that 2017 was not before the 2016 election, you do not inspire confidence in your ability to accurately track relevant details.

          1. Texts between Storkz and his side piece, Page, state they had to be up to speed, because there was a WH briefing and the Big Guy wanted in on every step of the “investigation”
            We know that was the Early Jan 2021 briefing that Obama and Biden were both in attendance.

            1. Unsurprisingly, iowan, you’re either purposefully moving the goalposts or so inattentive that you can’t keep track of the subject.

              John made a claim about “the Alpha Bank nonsense was a HOAX … Both President Obama and Vice President Biden actively involved in this hoax,” and that’s what I asked about.

              You have not produced any evidence of Obama and Biden being “actively involved” in anything related to the Alfa Bank data

              1. Are you telling us Obama and Biden weren’t involved in the Alfa Bank? No, I don’t think you are saying that. You are saying they weren’t actively involved. In other words you are telling us they were behind the scenes involved in the puppet strings.

                1. No, I’m saying that the person who makes the claim is the one with the burden of proof.

                  John claimed “the Alpha Bank nonsense was a HOAX … Both President Obama and Vice President Biden actively involved in this hoax,” but hasn’t presented any evidence that Obama and Biden were “actively involved.”

                  And you, the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, cannot control your obsession with anonymous liberal commenters, so you respond with the lie “You are saying they weren’t actively involved. In other words you are telling us they were behind the scenes involved in the puppet strings.”

                  You are Meyer the Troll Liar.

                  1. “No”

                    Are you now saying that Biden and Obama were not actively involved and that they were passively involved? Or are you saying they were actively involved behind the scenes?

                    Tell us. We have heard from them and their subordinates. Now you can explain what all their discussions about Alpha Bank involved. Why did Alpha Bank enter the news cycle?

                    1. Good morning Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar!

                      How’s the trolling this morning?

                    2. Good morning Anonymous the Stupid. I wasn’t trolling. Instead, I was trying to get things straight. The news media is linked to the Democrat Party, with leaders such as Obama and Biden, though Biden is more like Obama’s turnip on his salad.

                      When bombs are bursting around us, we don’t have to define the chain of command. We look at their trajectory, and then we know where they are coming from. You stand at the gun you just fired and tell us no one created the environment for this to happen. You tell us further that you were just standing there, and the bomb, all by itself, took flight and landed on its target.

                      Then you become speechless like you should be right now as you display the ignorance of one who lies through deceit and pretends nothing happened.

                    3. Or you could just read the declassified memos and the publicly released meeting notes.

                      It is not the rest of our job to force you to become familiar with readily available published evidence.

                  2. Apparently you can not read.

                    I commented – what was long ago reported in the media and has been confirmed.

                    That CIA Director John Brennan hand carried a memo to Obama with CIA analysis that the DNC/Clinton were actively engaged in a false flag operation tying Trump to Putin.

                    You can search for the reporting, but I beleive that the Brennan memo occured in June 2016 – and is likely the result of the CIA Alfa bank analysis. But if you wish to disagree – then there is some OTHER evidence that Clinton was up to no good in the CIA possession.

                    Regardless, CIA knew about HFA misconduct and informed Obama – directly – Brennan directly to Obama, Before Obama and Biden participated in the Jan 5, 2017 WH meeting which resulted in the effort to frame Flynn – Which Biden discussed.

                    Which is the part you do not accept ?

                    My posts are often already long – do you want links to sources for all the facts that have been accurately reported in the press ?

                    https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/06/breaking-dni-declassifies-handwritten-notes-from-john-brennan-2016-cia-referral-on-clinton-campaigns-collusion-operation/

                    It is possible that what is being refered to is NOT the Alfa Bank hoax.
                    But that STILL does not change anything.

                    The CIA was aware that the Russians were aware that the Clinton campaign was producing Fake Opo research tying Trump to Russia and Obama was personally told.

                    1. One of your problems, John, is that you often say things that have absolutely nothing to do with what you were asked.

                      I noted that you’d provided no evidence for your claim that “Both President Obama and Vice President Biden actively involved in this [the Alpha [sic] Bank nonsense] hoax.” You still haven’t provided any evidence of that. Your article makes absolutely no mention of Alfa Bank.

                      You wish to move the goalposts to something else. I do not.

                      “outside of court – and to some extent inside, the burden or proof rests with those with the lest credibility. ”

                      Total BS. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim: https://effectiviology.com/burden-of-proof/

                      You can educate yourself about it, or you can stick with your mistaken belief, but your choice to believe something false will not make it true.

                  3. And just to be clear – though I provided ONE link,
                    you are actually incorrect about burden of proof.

                    The burden of proof for moral failures always rests with those making the claim.

                    With regard to everything else – outside of court – and to some extent inside, the burden or proof rests with those with the lest credibility.

                    I provide losts of fasts in most of my posts – that makes it easy for you to check them out.
                    I am obligated to get the facts right.
                    I am not obligated to prove them to you – they are publicly available facts you can check for yourself.

                    Conversely – those like you who have a record for being light on facts and/or providing facts that prove false on inspection – your burden of proof is high.

                    I go to a great deal of effort to be correct about my facts – so that I do not end up with your reputation for error among those whose view matter to me. I have established a reputation – whether you accept that or not.

                    Conversely you are posting as anonymous – you have ZERO credibility or reputation – that is not an insult it is an observation of fact.

                    Every anonymous post is essentially stand alone.

                    Anonymity destroys identity which destroys reputation and credibility.

  5. What a HORRIBLE STAIN upon our Country and the Democrat Party! The Clintons are as corrupt as the Bidens! And Obama is sitting in mansions he owns, running fat with influence and SUPPORTED BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA! CORRUPTION is sickening and Biden is beholden to China, Ukraine AND Russia! WILL OUR GOVERNMENT SURVIVE? How can we right this vessel???

    1. Just a tiny thimble full of “journalists” are reporting any of this. Worse, while I can’t prove a negative, it seems that zero journalists from the center, the Left or who spent months reporting on this back when it was all happening have stepped up to finish the story. Are they so cowed by fear, shame, the Democrats, their social circles, their employers, or so – in mass – engulfed in hate for Trump, the country, Republicans, conservative ideology that they have gone so silent. Can’t they see that silence IS complicity. This is their last chance for any small grain of redemption and they are turning their back.

      At the end of the day, for me, the professional journalist shoulders the most guilt, blame and shame. The rest, like the Clintons, their people, the CIA/FBI pawns are just players in this game. Actors. What excuse do journalists have for not reporting this factually then, and just as or more egregiously, not reporting this as it is revealed today?

    2. In reality there is only one political party: The Property Party. It has two right wings. We’d probably be better off by starting over sticking with one officially recognized gang of thieves.

  6. The CIA knew in 2017 that the Alpha Bank Trump connection was not “physically possible.” Why didn’t the CIA make their findings public? Let me venture an answer. The CIA was occupying the same sleeping appliance as the Democratic Party. They are so full of themselves that they think they will never be found out. Think about J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Just because treason is hard to prove it does not mean that it never happens. This isn’t just about Washington shenanigans, it’s about the screwing of the American people by the people who are supposed to be protecting us. The word shame doesn’t even began to describe the perpetrators of the Russian Hoax. Now we must ask. Why do they hide behind the fifth amendment?

    1. Never mind why didn’t they make it public – why didn’t they tell the FBI and SC Mueller ?

      The same is true of he other evidence Durham has obtained. This is more than about Alpha Bank – Durham has established there was no actual source for the Steele Dossia outside of Brookings the DNC. and Fushion GPS.

      Durham established this with information that was KNOWN by DOJ/FBI Before Mueller was appointed.

      Why was Mueller appointed when DOJ/FBI aready KNEW the allegations were a fraud.

      Further remember Obama and Biden were both part of this.

      We also know know that CIA told Obama that the Clinton Campaign was working on this Hoax in the Summer of 2016.

      So Obama KNEW this fraud was being sold to FBI/DOJ/CIA/State – and he participated in meetings to protect and advance it.

  7. Except of course that the bulk of “Russian hoax” turned out to be true. Face it fascists, your MAGA lord’s campaign was actively seeking Russian assistance in the election, and they provided it.

    1. Lol wrong. 100% dead ass, wrong. But you and your ilk long for it to be true. And as far as fascist go, it’s the left that are fascist. Always wanting to stop free speech. Wanting to stop Elon Musk from buying Twitter. Always wanting to shut others down that don’t agree with them. That don’t side with them. That ask questions pertaining to absolutely anything, that questions in the manner of authority of the left. The left, the party of
      Evil = The Democrat Party is always running interference for the radical fascist BLM.

    2. Sammy, please tell us what parts of the Russian Hoax were true. Please elaborate. We are very interested in your point by point analysis. Rather than just your declaration that the Russian Hoax is true we would appreciate an educated explanation of your position. Remember that the operative word is “educated.”

    3. You’re a moron. None of it turned out to be true. You fascist leftists will be destroyed in the end.

    4. Really ?

      Do you inderstand that Steele’s primary source disowned it in Jan. 2017 has also been indicted for lying to the FBI.

      There is no allegation in the Steele Dossier that has not been traced to a source that could possibly have actual knowledge.

      There are no russian oligarchs secretly feeding Steele. Everything came from the Brookings institute, the DNC or the fertile mind of Glenn Simpson.

      Durham is doing a remarkable job of doing what is nearly impossible – proving the negative.

  8. I sense they don’t want to fall on the sword for Hilary. Or, they could just use Hilary’s answer to any questions. I don’t recall.

    1. Not just Hilary. I count 1,217.5 “I don’t recall” answers to various probes of the Russian Collusion Delusion since 2017. Comey leads the pack with 221.5 (the .5 was “let me get back to you on that.”)

      1. Bingo Ken. Spot-On! Comey did say that. I will never forget watching his testimony that day on television. You simply cannot keep up with all the times he kept saying over and over and over to the rapid fire questioning by Senator Ted Cruz. He had to have had it planned, primed, ready to say, “I Don’t Recall.”

        Another one that escapes just about everybody that even watched it, and it definitely escaped everybody that didn’t watch it only because they go on what little bit they read about the testimony that day, That disgusting day. Here it is. “I’m Not Sure.” That would have to be at least 150 times, Comey uttered those words. If you watched it the testimony that day do you remember him saying that repeatedly???

        1. Give that it is obvious to all but a moron that the entire FBI/DOJ/SC investigation of Trump was a HOAX, and a Crime – why exactly is it that you think it is significant that Trump did not provide an illegal investigation everything YOU wanted ?

          They latest from Durham is that Sussman tried to sell the Alpha bank hoax to the CIA and the CIA analysed the data and found ….. It was manufactured, manipulated and inconsistent – i.e. it was a hoax.

          But there are other tidbits – the same documents reveal that the Clinton campaign was spying on Trump PRIOR to the DNC hack – atleast as early as April of 2016.

          So we have a completely Clinton concocted bunch of nonsense.

          The Alpha bank data is not only illegally obtained – but it is fraudulently manipulated – i.e. a HOAX,
          The “Steele Dossier’ does not turn out to even have bad sources in Russia. Steele’s claims were created from whole cloth often from members of the Clinton campaign.

          These are all the foundations of the DOJ/FBI/SC investigation and they are ALL FRAUDS.

          Worse those in government knew from the start (or shortly thereafter) they were frauds.

          The question is not why didn;t Trump answer Muellers questions

          It is why was Mueller ever appointed in the first place ?
          and why wasn’t Mueller investigating the Hoax ?

          You seem to think it is OK to falsely and fraudulently accuse people of crimes and then demand the most extensive investigation in US history – into a HOAX.

          It is self evident that Trump would have been justified in Firing Mueller ten times over.

          There are lots of people who need to answer questions under oath – Trump is not among them

          And you wonder why J6 happened ?

          And you wonder why much of the country does not trust the election ?

          Large portions of the media, the government, the left and the democratic party is complicit in numerous illegal acts to get rid of Trump.

          Why would anyone be surprised if they also engaged in election fraud ?

  9. (OT, sort of)

    A post on Easter!

    Whatever you think of Turley’s opinions, you have to admire his dedication.

  10. So you can say that: Russian Collusion is correspondingly Clinton Collusion
    the two of which are synchronously entwined. Wherefore all; suggestions, statements, comments, innuendos (all speech) related to the subject matter of ‘Russian Collusion’ were made at the behest of the Clinton Campaign and wherein Hillary Clinton paid no heed to dispel or rectify the disinformation when patently knowing it was false.

    You could say the same thing for Hillary Clinton’s comments about Tulsi Gabbard. Which indicates that Clinton has an established pattern of spreading false information and lying.

    ‘The Cover Up’ of these actions are equally important and detrimental to the Constitutional processes of the American Election integrity.

    So it begs the Question, Whom at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) knew about this?
    Not ‘1’ FEC Personnel had voiced and opinion? These are the People-in-Charge of watching the Election(s) America.

    Is it ‘Collusion’ or the ‘Corruption’ of the American Constitutional System.

    Res ipsa loquitur – The Thing speaks for itself

    IN YOUR FACE AMERICA! 🇺🇸

    1. The Cover-Up (And so was James Clapper – Complicit)

      Our Private World [The Cover-Up Continues – They Lie about Lying]

      Why Does James Clapper Have A Leadership Role At An Ethics Center?

      Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper may sit on the executive board of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, but his track record shows he’s no truth-telling, law-abiding saint.

      https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/08/why-does-russia-hoaxer-hunter-biden-laptop-throttler-james-clapper-still-sit-on-the-board-of-an-ethics-center/

      1. University of Pennsylvania? Is that where Professor Biden teaches young students and the Chinese donated Millions of Dollars? Perhaps, they need to investigate that University!

        1. MORE than likely He (James Clapper) is there at the invitation of The Wharton School. The Think Tank and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) at the University of Pennsylvania, led by Dr. James McGann.
          https://www.wharton.upenn.edu/

          Wharton, Rand Corporation, Carnegie Mellon University, etc. … various Think-Tank(s) that ‘Cook-up the Narrative(s)’ for You and I to digest.

          North American think tanks
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank#North_American_think_tanks

  11. “Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges.”

    Yes, as Judge Cooper stated “while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law, the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial.” That is, Judge Cooper might or might not ultimately grant the motion to dismiss for lack of materiality, but he cannot make that decision until he’s heard the government’s evidence of materiality at trial.

    Turley claims “Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.”

    It’s interesting that he doesn’t also think “Sussmann’s lawyers continue to drop bombshells in their filings in US v Sussmann.”

    Has Turley even read the filings by Sussmann’s lawyers?

    For example, Sussmann’s lawyers claim that Durham lied about Sussmann having failed to preserve text messages that Perkins Coie required be preserved and that Durham failed to even obtain the policies before making the accusation:

    the Special Counsel seeks to introduce evidence that Mr. Sussmann purportedly failed to preserve certain text messages that he exchanged with Mr. Baker using his personal device, as was purportedly required by Perkins Coie record retention policies. As the Special Counsel is aware, Mr. Sussmann had not retained the text messages in question—which contain exculpatory information—because he replaced the personal cellphone he used to send them and does not store his personal text messages on the cloud. Nevertheless, the Special Counsel argues that this was a violation of Perkins Coie policy. However, when asked to identify or produce which specific Perkins Coie policies addressed Mr. Sussmann’s retention of these text messages, the Special Counsel was unable to do so. Instead, the Special Counsel disclosed that he did not have copies of the relevant firm policies when he made the allegation.

    Subsequently, the defense issued a subpoena to Perkins Coie; obtained the relevant policies; and confirmed that none of those policies addressed text messages, let alone required their preservation. Instead, those policies—which govern the “retention and destruction” of client records—make clear that only significant client communications must be retained, and that electronic communications concerning scheduling do not satisfy the relevant definition of “significant communication.” … The policy explicitly provides that emails regarding scheduling, for example, do not rise to the level of a “significant communication” and would not, therefore, trigger the policy’s retention requirements. Id. Thus even if the policy applied to text messages—and it did not—the policy would not have required Mr. Sussmann to preserve copies of his text messages with Mr. Baker. … the Special Counsel’s willingness to level this explosive allegation without even bothering to first obtain copies of the relevant Perkins Coie policies they accuse Mr. Sussmann of violating— policies that, on their face, do not require the preservation of the texts at issue—is nothing short of shocking. …

    There’s clearly more in the motions from both sides. But you’re not going to hear about both sides here, or even get a link to the arguments made by the defense.

    It will be interesting to see how Judge Cooper rules on the various motions in limine by both sides.

    1. Anonymous, were also using such a fine tooth comb when discussing the charges against Michael Flynn? How about any of the charges leveled against Trump? How about any of the attacks by the media in conjunction with the Mueller Report?

      Let me ask you this Anonymous: Do you or do you not think that Clinton and her team were guilty of committing crimes? did they or did they not lie to the FBI as was charged against Flynn and others? Do you think that Comey and Clapper lied to Congress? Do you think that having one side in a two sided election spy on the other side, using the police agencies of the federal government and the media, is a scandal? If not, did you think that bugging the DNC by Nixon was a crime? How about LYING after the fact?

      The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when the “you know what” hit the fan the Republicans went to Nixon and told him to resign or be impeached, but when it hits the fan against a Clinton little partisan hacks like Anonymous obfuscate, lie and whataboutism to death the claims. It is sickening to think that little minds like Anonymous will defend Clinton in this case and Biden in the “Laptop” case despite KNOWING that both are guilty as sin.

      Agnew resigned over cash in an envelope (rightly) but Anonymous thinks it is fine that the PRESIDENT took millions from our most dangerous enemies, the CCP and Russia. SICKENING how a leftist sellout will abandon the nation in order to keep a Democrat in office.

      PS. Joe Biden should be impeached for what he is doing vis a vis our border. The President is not “defending the Constitution….”

      1. hullbobby:

        Do you have any desire to discuss US v Sussmann and the documents filed in that case?

        1. “Do you have any desire to discuss US v Sussmann and the documents filed in that case?”

          Warning: Rabbit hole ahead.

        2. Anonymous, do you have any desire to discuss how the CLINTONS colluded with Russia with the assistance of Obama and Biden? Do you want to discuss Biden selling us out to the CCP? Do you want to discuss the case at hand or do you want to relitigate the Mueller Report?

          DEEP STATE LOSER!

          1. I *am* discussing the case at hand: US v Sussmann.

            Durham doesn’t allege any criminal activity by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden. Which you might know if you actually read the documents.

            I take it that you have no desire to discuss US v Sussmann and the documents filed in this case, and you instead desire that I join you in discussing allegations you’ve presented no evidence for.

              1. You allege lies but don’t quote anything that’s even false, much less provide evidence of a lie.

                You are fond of evidenceless allegations.

                1. You haven’t stopped lying for a second. You lie on top of lies. Hullbobby gave a list, anonymous provided some. TIT provided some rebuttal, and John Say has been remarking about your wordplay and lies ever since he came on the list.

                  What do you mean ‘no evidence?’ Plenty of evidence has been displayed, but you will say …’ what about?’ or you will change the subject… or you will reply to only a part of an idea. You will do anything to hide your mistruths.

                  Keep lying. It’s obvious. If you want to argue that what you said wasn’t a lie, then stick with it and all the questions that prove it to be a lie.

                  1. What’s “obvious” is that you’ll assert without evidence “You haven’t stopped lying for a second” but you cannot quote anything I said that’s false, much less demonstrating that it was a lie.

        3. Anonymous the Stupid, You have every desire not to discuss the hundreds of lies you haven’t committed. Hulbobby gave you a shortlist that you need to be accountable for. Discussing Sussman is a waste, for you will tell things today that tomorrow will be proven false, and you will never say you were wrong.

          No one needs to discuss anything with someone who lies with almost every breath. Only your lies should be objects of discussion.

          You can start with the first three on Hullbobby’s list.

          1. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar.

            You are not a good-faith discussant, and I will not treat you as one.

            Want all you wish from me, but as the song goes, You Can’t Always Get What You Want.

            1. As I said, you lie based on your deceit. I didn’t bring up Hullbobby’s questions. He did. Don’t answer me. Answer him.

              You won’t because, without deceit, your lies become transparent.

              Blog members are all waiting for you to respond to Hullbobby. You won’t because you know what you are.

      2. Clinton and her cronies – inside and outside of govenrment are GUILTY otf framing innocent people in here efforts to win an election and failing that destroy the actual winners.

        Clinton’s misconduct is not Unique to Trump – her people started the Birther effort to drive Obama out of the election, as well as were the source of the eariliest stories on Hunter Biden in Ukraine – in a successful effort to get Biden out of the 2016 election.

        All that is particularly unique with regard to Clinton’s malevalence to Trump – is that her efforts continued after the election, required the complicity of the DOJ/FBI and ultimately the SC, and involved selling fraudulent criminal allegations to the FBI/DOJ/

      1. What is compelling is NOT Durham’s “arguments” – but the facts he is providing with each rebuttle.

        You do not seem to grasp that Sussman and his lawyers are slowly digging their own grave and that of the democratic party.

        It would be best for democrats if Sussman quietly pled guilty.

        So you are clear – Durham’s latest missive rests on emails, and documents from CIA concerning Sussman’s approach to them.

        Until recently we did not know that Sussman approached the CIA.

        We did not know that the CIA assessed the Alpha Bank claim as a “HOAX”

        Sussman and your “argument” hinges entirely on materiality.

        Durham has now documented BOTH that Sussman lied to the government I beleive it is now 5 times about this. But that the CIA and some in the FBI assessed his claims as FALSE despite the LIES.

        If this LIE was immaterial – why was it repeated many times – UNTIL Sussman was finally under oath ?

        When you are making any allegation the source of the allegation is ALWAYS material.

        1. “It would be best for democrats if Sussman quietly pled guilty. ”

          I’m a Democrat. I’m happy for there to be a public trial. Sussmann is a Democrat. He’s choosing to have a public trial. Don’t fool yourself that you know what’s best for actual Democrats.

          “Durham’s latest missive rests on emails, and documents from CIA concerning Sussman’s approach to them.”

          It rests on claims that Durham is making about various documents that were not attached as exhibits and where the Judge hasn’t yet ruled on their admissability. We will have to wait for the Judge to rule, and if they’re admissable, we’ll have to wait to see them.

          You trust Durham to be accurate. I do not, based on errors he’s already made.

          “We did not know that the CIA assessed the Alpha Bank claim as a “HOAX””

          There’s no evidence from Durham that the CIA said it was a “hoax.” That’s your word, not a word that appears in Durham’s filings, and we do not have access the CIA document(s) that Durham is selecting phrases from, so we do not know how the CIA itself used the quoted phrases.

          “Durham has now documented BOTH that Sussman lied to the government I beleive it is now 5 times about this.”

          It’s unclear what you’re referring to as “this.”

          “If this LIE was immaterial – why was it repeated many times – UNTIL Sussman was finally under oath ?”

          Durham has alleged that “On or about September 19, 2016, within the District of Columbia, MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, the defendant … stated to the General Counsel of the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations concerning a Presidential candidate, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, he was acting on behalf of specific clients, namely, Tech Executive-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”

          That is the SOLE charge.

          The issue of materiality is about THAT charge, not about anything else you WISH Durham had charged instead.

          You are either asserting here that Sussmann said the above to the government “many times” but Durham chose not to indict him for any of the other instances, OR you are talking about some other “lie” that you do not articulate.

          We do not yet know whether Durham is correct that Sussmann was acting on behalf of Joffe and Clinton, and some of this seems to hinge on the meaning of “on behalf of,” as that phrase seems to have more than one legal meaning. Sussmann was Joffe’s lawyer and presented data that came from Joffe and researchers Joffe worked with (so Sussman was representing Joffe and there on behalf of Joffe in this legal sense of “on behalf of”), but Sussmann was not asking for any legal benefit for Joffe in the meeting (so Sussmann was not there on behalf of Joffe in another legal sense of “on behalf of”). Sussmann denies that he was there on behalf of the Clinton Campaign in either sense of “on behalf of.”

          And we’re just going to have to be patient until the Judge rules on the motions before him prior to trial and then see how Durham and Sussman’s lawyers make their cases at trial.

          1. Correction: where I said “It rests on claims that Durham is making about various documents that were not attached as exhibits and where the Judge hasn’t yet ruled on their admissability,” I should have said “some of which were not attached as exhibits and where the Judge hasn’t yet ruled on their admissability.”

          2. “You trust Durham to be accurate. I do not, based on errors he’s already made.”

            Yet you trusted all sorts of political statements based on the Steele Dossier. You are a hypocrite. To true such data means you rendered support for the Steele Dossier. Behind a lot that you said in the past was the Steele Dossier that you refused to admit wasn’t true. You are a total hypocrite and a deceitful liar.

            “we’re just going to have to be patient until the Judge rules on the motions”

            Yet, when a Republican is involved, you trust the news media that is still in the fog and lacks facts.

            Double standard. You cannot be trusted. You are not credible.

    2. “As the Special Counsel argues, it is at least possible that statements made to law enforcement prior to an investigation could materially influence the later trajectory of the investigation. Sussmann offers no legal authority to the contrary.”
      Judge Cooper.

      Frankly so far I think Cooper’s legal writing and reasoning is poor, it is not so self evidently one sided as you claim.

      It was appropriate for Cooper to dismiss Sussman’s motion with a simple,
      Materiality is an issue that Durham must prove, and Sussman can attempt to disprove at trial. There is sufficient to proceed.

      There was no reason for his speculative discursions on either side.

      Regardless, materiality here is well established.

      Sussman lied about the SOURCE of FALSE allegations. The source of even true allegations is relevant.

      The source of allegations not know to be true or false – the NORM, is fundimental to assessing the credibility of the allegation and the motives for it.

      1. “Sussman lied about the SOURCE of FALSE allegations.”

        Durham must prove that at trial.

    3. Most of what you hear here is a discussion of the FACTS revealed in these legal arguments.

      Aside from you – I do not think anyone is discussing either Sussman or Durham’s arguments.

      Or are you claiming that the documents that Durham prvided regarding Sussman’s interactions with the
      CIA are altered ?

      I would note that the CIA information is espeically damning.

      CIA is not only saying that Sussman lied to them about who employed him – but that the information he provided was also a fraud.

      1. “are you claiming that the documents that Durham prvided regarding Sussman’s interactions with the CIA are altered ?”

        No.

        “CIA is not only saying that Sussman lied to them about who employed him – but that the information he provided was also a fraud.”

        Please identify the docket document #(s) that you’re referring to: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/

        Let’s see what the CIA itself actually said. I’m not going to take your word for it (or, for that matter, Durham’s word, if he’s quoting a phrase and we do not know the sentence it was pulled from).

  12. Five witnesses pleaded the fifth amendment, and I can’t remember how many of Mueller’s team erased their phones at around the same time. Can anyone remind me? Is this drawing a picture?

  13. Conspiracy cases are fun….as they are like herding up cattle….you get one…then another….and another till you get the entire herd.

    Best of all…it only takes a single overt act by any one member of the conspiracy to get every member of the group.

    We are seeing enough already (if you have an open mind and a basic ability to comprehend the written word) to grasp Durham is getting to the final stages of issuing a slew of Indictments and begin prosecutions for those who do not trade their liability for full and complete testimony under Oath in Court in trade for Immunity or lighter sentences.

    Right now they all talk big and declare they are going to take the Fifth and stand hard…but when THEY get indicted and are confronted with Decades in Prison or cooperate with the Prosecution……just watch them roll over to save their own sorry hides.

    Bill Barr has been attacked by the Left….politicians and media….but in appointing Durham he may have done one of the finest deeds to begin to restore our System of Justice in this country that has ever been done.

    1. Barr was successful in so far that he found a prosecutor who appears to be unencumbered by the taint of swamp corruption and can proceed without fear.

      1. Barr was successful regard Durham.

        But overall he is a failed AG.

        Whatever good he did got completely wiped away by his departure.

        It should be self evident that there needed to either be an SC to investgate election fraud – or an SC to investigate Biden/Ukraine – or Both.

        Instead we got an AG who is using the FBI to target parents as domestic terrorists.

        Mostly I think Barr was a good guy – but he was a failure – he did not understand what he was up against.

        Had Barr’s reforms of DOJ and FBI “Stuck” that would be incredible.

        Durham is my nominee for the Next AG.

    2. I understand your thought process and conclusions under normal circumstances. But aren’t the perps just counting on a DC jury to save them?

  14. I trust Mr. Durham is aware of the target he has become and not only has a security force protecting him physically, but wears Kevlar basically all the time.
    Anyone remember who Vince Foster was?

    1. hawaiirodney: Uh, no to the courthouse question. In my life of 65 years, it is becoming increasingly obvious that people at that level, especially leftists, do not have to worry about accountability. These folks go on to prestigious positions within the ever-growing Deep Sate.

  15. Are they getting close to Jake Sullivan? Wake me when they do I want to see if that worm will turn. Stay away from Fort Marcy Park, Jake.

  16. The Dim lieacrats at work. Absolute enemies of the Republic. Any sentient beings still believe these folks- about anything? Hanging is too good for ‘em. How about tar and feathers or drawn and quartered?

    1. Very amusing….now that the Russians have publicly acknowledged Trump is their partner……it’s time to go after Hilary again.
      One thing about TRUMPSTERS they take the prize on willful blindness.

        1. Hillary Clinton is at the bottom of nearly every single scandal in the past 40 years.

          The extent of her involvement in abolutely nuts stuff is beyond beleif.

      1. Justice Holmes, when Putin was asked if he wanted Trump to win a second term he answered “Da.” Do you think that Putin’s endorsement would help or hurt Trump? Would the American people be more inclined or less inclined to vote for Trump due to Putin’s endorsement? Putin was just trolling for useful idiots and the people like you with the white canes jumped right in with the Trump Russia connection. Putin is laughing at you. Even though your eyes are perfectly capable of vision you are the one who is willfully employing the white cane.

        1. Putin “loved” Trump so much that he didn’t invade an innocent country, didn’t threaten WW III, didn’t coddle up to China, saw NATO being badgered into spending more on defense, saw his troops getting shelled in Syria, saw his allies in Iran being destroyed and didn’t get his gas deal with Germany. Yup, once Trump was gone that Putin guy sure decided to behave himself.

          ASK THE UKRAINIANS IF THEY ARE HAPPY TRUMP LOST.

            1. Putin would have said anything to prevent Trump from being reelected. He knew with Trump in power, he couldn’t invade Ukraine. He also knew Biden would weaken America’s military and economic power. Putin might be a killer, but he is a smart killer. Biden was never much of anything, and now he is senile as well. Biden never cared for America as much as he cared for lining his own pockets.

              You can’t recognize any of these things. Instead you lie and deceive. While doing that you remain anonymous to make it difficult to prove all the lies you have made. The jig is up. You have been proven a lie too many times.

      2. Hillary Clinton scares the Borgia’s.

        There is an Irish folk song where the Devil takes a man’s wife down to Hell and then brings her back – because she tried to take over Hell.

        Hillary Clinton has been at the center of more than half the disasters and Political conspiracies in my lifetime.

        It would not shock me to see evidence surface that Hillary conspired with Osama to take down the WTC.

        No one sane would defend Hillary.

        What is remarkable is that she is not in jail.

    1. Another interesting point Durham made in the filing: the defense claimed that the five-year statute of limitations for charges against Joffe had run, but Durham responded that the defense does not know everything he does or the nature of the charges he is considering, so that claim is without a sound basis. This may indicate that he is putting together a conspiracy case with acts extending well into at least 2017. As I understand it, in a conspiracy charge the statute runs from the most recent act in the conspiracy and can reach back to include conduct occurring more than five years before the charge is brought, so long as that conduct is part of the conspiracy.

Leave a Reply to 🇺🇸 Cancel reply