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

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

  1. Throw them in jail for not cooperating – it’s what they’re doing to innocent people involved in 1/6. Which is much more BS than what Hillary and the DEMON RATS did to this country for 3 years and President Trump.

    1. “Throw them in jail for not cooperating – it’s what they’re doing to innocent people involved in 1/6”

      No, not a single person in jail in association with 1/6 is in jail for being a non-cooperating witness.

      The people in jail in association with 1/6 are in jail either because they’ve been indicted for committing crimes and a judge has determined that they should be held pending trial, or they’ve already been found guilty of committing crimes and are either serving their sentence or are being held pending sentencing.

      1. Over time Anonymous the Stupid has provided a lot of different statements as to who was or was not in jail for Jan 6. At best, one could call many of those deceptive and, worse, lies. In the case of ATS, deception is his favored way of lying.

        ATS has given us the impression repeatedly that no one innocent was jailed for Jan 6. Would he say the same thing for those imprisoned in Michigan for the kidnapping? I can’t know for sure, but in the Michigan case, we have two innocent people who spent a year and a half in jail.

        Both the Jan 6 and Michigan cases were highly political, so I think we will eventually find the same happened in the Jan 6 cases.

        Applying a little logic to the different but similar cases places Anonymous the Stupid in a bad light, so one can reasonably assume him to be a liar almost without regard to the topic under discussion. Nothing can be trusted that comes from him.

        “A jury was not convinced on charges against Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta as they voted to acquit the defendants. Harris was facing four counts while Caserta faced one count of kidnapping conspiracy. Both men are free to go. They already spent a year and a half in jail while waiting for their case to go to trial.”

        https://www.savagetakes.com/04/2022/13/654857

          1. I guess that means you agree that you are deceptive and a liar. Now everyone can remember that when they read what you write.

            Thanks.

            1. You guess wrong. Your insults always describe your own behavior and demeanor. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid, also known as Meyer the Troll Liar.

        1. Once again, S. Meyer shows his massive ignorance.

          “ Both the Jan 6 and Michigan cases were highly political, so I think we will eventually find the same happened in the Jan 6 cases.

          Applying a little logic to the different but similar cases places Anonymous the Stupid in a bad light, so one can reasonably assume him to be a liar almost without regard to the topic under discussion. ”

          The cases are not similar at all. The Jan 6 cases involve evidence on video showing those charged engaging in illegal trespassing, violence against police, vandalism, theft, and threatening violence against legislators.

          The Michigan cases involve a plot that was never acted on.

          Those “innocent” Michigan folks were held in jail because they were deemed a serious threat due to the nature of the charges. It’s legal to hold them in jail pending trial just as the Jan 6 cases are.

          Anonymous is right. You project onto others your flaws while calling them liars. What you’re saying is you are not to be taken seriously because you cannot be trusted to understand the facts in front of you.

          1. I understand you, Svelaz. You cannot think. Some of those involved in the Michigan plot are the same people involved on Jan 6. I am talking about law enforcement or agents of law enforcement. Did you know that? Does that make a difference to you?

            You state that some in the Michigan plot were held in jail because they were threats. We now have two people from that plot that were found innocent and spent one and one-half years in prison. On the other hand, violent offenders are being arrested and let out of jail without bail in Democrat strongholds. Do you think that makes sense?

            Svelaz, start using facts instead of things you pull out of thin air. Anonymous the Stupid is Stupid, and he proved it. Are you his advocate? Are you up to the job? LOL

            1. S. Meyer,

              “ Some of those involved in the Michigan plot are the same people involved on Jan 6. I am talking about law enforcement or agents of law enforcement. Did you know that?”

              Nobody knew that because your claims made no mention or reference to law enforcement. No, they are not the same people and the cases are still not “similar” as you claim. The same people handling the Jan 6 cases are not the same people who handled the kidnapping plot. Just because they all belonged to the FBI doesn’t mean the same people were handling both. Your atrocious writing skills didn’t give any context on what you are trying to argue.

              “ You state that some in the Michigan plot were held in jail because they were threats. We now have two people from that plot that were found innocent and spent one and one-half years in prison.“

              What I stated is factually correct. All of those people who plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan were arrested and charged. The law allows them to be held in jail pending trial at the discretion of the judge. Given the nature of the charges, they posed enough of a threat to justify keeping them in jail until their trial. Now that their verdicts have been reached and found innocent they no longer need to be in jail.

              The fact that they were in prison because they were awaiting trial is not evidence that they were innocent or guilty. But they have correctly deemed them a threat due to the evidence presented to the judge at the time of their arrest.

              You are the only one who is stupid here. You call yourself ATS all the time.

              1. Svelaz, thank you for informing us that you have no compunction against placing an innocent person in jail for 18 months. All should shun your type of totalitarian disposition. It isn’t because we take sympathy for those that are intellectually challenged.

                “Nobody knew that because your claims made no mention or reference to law enforcement.”

                Did nobody know? If one is illiterate and never listens to the news, perhaps one can say that. I just posted a link to Judith Kelly that showed law enforcement personnel have involvement in both cases.

                No one here has to correct the many errors you make almost every time you post. This present mini-thread contains many Svelazisms (factual errors). I know it, and most people on the blog know it. The only one ignorant of that fact is you.

                If you don’t like how I write, don’t read what I write. Your problem in reading has to do with your low intellectual abilities and your lack of true facts.

                1. S. Meyer,

                  “ Svelaz, thank you for informing us that you have no compunction against placing an innocent person in jail for 18 months. All should shun your type of totalitarian disposition. It isn’t because we take sympathy for those that are intellectually challenged.”

                  It’s only about what I think. It’s about you not understanding how the legal system works. They were not innocent or guilty when they were charged. But the LAW allows for them to be held in jail until their trial. The judge had sole authority to grant bail or not based on the evidence at the time. The government successfully convinced the judge that the plotters posed a high risk and were granted their request that those charged remain in jail until trial.

                  1. A jury determined that two of them can be out of jail forever, and dissmissed several charges against the other two.

                    I would note that assessing risk is inherently a subjective proposition – which is why the bill of rights has several atleast partly ignored provisions regarding trials and bail.

                    I would note they were OBVIOUSLY not that high a risk – while they were mostly one step short of homeless, they had no serious problems in the past, and as the actual evidence showed – even the FBI fell short trying to convince them to actually ACT on the plot that the government concocted.

                    Like the J6 protestors – they were locked up for having the worng politics.

                    1. John B. Say,

                      “ I would note they were OBVIOUSLY not that high a risk – while they were mostly one step short of homeless, they had no serious problems in the past, and as the actual evidence showed – even the FBI fell short trying to convince them to actually ACT on the plot that the government concocted.”

                      You didn’t know that at the time they were arrested and charged. Nobody knew that. You’re making an assumption with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight provided by the results of the trial.

                      “ I would note that assessing risk is inherently a subjective proposition – which is why the bill of rights has several atleast partly ignored provisions regarding trials and bail.”

                      Assessing risk according to the evidence at the time is a lawful prerogative afforded to any judge determining whether to grant bail or not. There are state and federal laws allowing suspects to be held pending trial.

                      “ Like the J6 protestors – they were locked up for having the worng politics.”

                      No, the J6 rioters were locked up because some were lawfully held pending trial, others were convicted after pleading guilty and as noted before judges have discretion on granting or denying bail according to evidence.

                    2. Svelaz:

                      First WE DID KNOW THAT WHEN THEY WERE ARRESTED.

                      The FBI certainly knew how hard it was to push them to the least act to allow arresting them.

                      We also knew their past.

                      But in truth all that does not matter.

                      The presumption of innocence covers that.
                      Each of us standing in criminal court is presumed to be innocent from the start.
                      Government has the burden of proof.

                    3. You highlight one of the worst problems of the left.

                      Govenrment is not permitted – not with criminal defendents – not with Covid, not with anything,
                      to presume that the hypothetical harm from what we do not know justified government infringement on our rights.

                      It does not,

                      If it did – there is always some unknown fear to justify usurping liberty.

                      What you fear does not trump my or anyone else’s rights.

                    4. In LA a man convicted of a grusome double murder was sentenced to 30 years.
                      In DC a man convicted of stealing Pelosi’s coat rack was sentenced to 30 years.
                      I believe 160 people were arrested during the riots that happened during the Kavanaugh hearing.
                      Senators offices were breached, Individual Senators were accosted.
                      I beleive one person used an Axe on a senators door.
                      All charges were ultimately dissmissed – and the guy with the axe – even got his axe back.

                      Obviously this is political.

                      The “most serious” charge – obstructing a government proceding – can not be constitutionally applied here.
                      First the left – FALSELY claims this was pro forma – the obstructing a proceeding charge does not apply to cerimonial actions.
                      But even for more substantive matters – it is specific to formal precedings were testimony and evidence are gathered.
                      This law has never been used this way before – or more accurately – when it was considered to be used this way those seeking to do so wisely decided it was unconstitutional to do so.
                      This law would much more strongly apply to the kavanaucgh hearings – and as I said before – all charges were dropped – noby faced 30 years for getting in a senators face during a hearing.

                      Tresspassing requires prior notice or failing to obey a demand to leave.
                      You can probably charge the few who broke into the capital with tresspassing – but nearly all those in the capital came though open doors – often invited in by the capital police. Regardless we would be dealing with misdemeanor tresspassing anyway which is not a serious offense. You would be unlikely to get jail for it.

                      Those who engaged in violence with police officers – who were not acting in defense of others and where the violence was not initiated by the police can be convicted of assulting a police officer. But you need to prove that. There is already plenty of video of police initiating violence against others. Two women were murdered by the capital police on J6, and they will not receive justice.

                      Of course this is political.

                    5. Svelaz – given enough time and coercion – and it usually requires very little – you can get nearly everyone to plead guilty to anything.

                      Again something those on the left USED to know.

                      There are almost 2000 people on the Innocence projects exonerated list – nearly every single one of those confessed.
                      Every single one was exonerated – PROVEN innocent. We are not talking about winning on a legal technicality, or because they rights were violated. The Innocence project only takes cases where they believe the client is INNOCENT – did not commit the crime, and will only investigate and make arguments for actual innocence. Where there are other reasons to release someone – they refer the cases to other lawyers.

                      My wife is a public defender and two of her clients are on the exonerated list. That is an amazing accomplishment.

                      Regardless, my point is that confessions and guilty pleas are so heavily coerced in our system they have no meaning.

                      Except that GENERALLY, there are almost no grounds for appealing a guilty plea. As the 1st defendant who plead guilty in the Michigan case is now likely to discover.

                  2. “It’s only about what I think. ”

                    Svelaz, we know. It’s only what you think, which isn’t much of anything. Politics put two innocent men in jail for 18 months, and you think that is perfectly fine. One has to be an idiot not to notice that it was wrong.

                    1. S. Meyer,

                      It’s NOT only about what I think. Not, “it’s only what I think.”

                    2. The Comma King is at it again. He is right about the grammar, but if ATS could concentrate on his critical thinking skills, maybe he would say things that weren’t worthless.

              2. Svelaz – the FACT is that we have been provided a tiny bit of the evidence of J6, we have been fed a carefully controlled narative.

                I was aware of the FBI malfeasance in the Whitmer case – but even I was not prepared for the unbeleiveable scale of FBI misconduct.
                The FBI was litterally egging their informants to push their targets to MURDER Whitmer – lessor criminal conduct was not enough – and the targets were RESISTING.

                What was exposed was 10 times more horrific than I imagined. It is worse that what was done to muslim teens after 9/11.

                Did the FBI and other government agencies engage in the same misconduct in J6 ?

                We do not know – we have enough FACTS to know that there was some govenrment involvement and definitely many government mistakes.
                That J6 was avoidable – or more accurate – the protests were not avoidable, the protestors entering the capital was not avoidable. But the violence and conflict with police was easily avoidable.

                Pelosi was concerned that thousands of Trump protestors marching through the capital and loudly demanding an investigation of the election could have persuaded enough republicans to result in Biden not getting certified.

                That was a real threat, and it was LEGITMATE, and constitutional. It is a threat in EVERY election – it is SUPPOSED to be, it is the final check on election integrity before violence.

                The violence that occured was BECAUSE that check was thwarted.

                Mow did the FBI do anything to make that violence more likely ?

                We do not know, but the Whitmer nonsense is NOT the first FBI misconduct of this kind – just the most egregious we know of.

                It is very reasonable to beleive the FBI was actively involved in J6,
                We will only know when democrats and govenrment quit STONEWALLING regarding the evidence.

                And that is one of many incredibly important questions.

                Democracy is far less threatened when people behave lawlessly than when Government behaves lawlessly.

                J6 occured because of a long long list of government lawlessness.
                J6 is the consequence of our institutions – govenrment – state federal and local, as well as the judiciary, and the press and big tech acting outside the law and losing our trust.

                You should always remember that the Declaration of independence is both a explanation of the purpose of government AND a justification for policitcal violence when that purpose is not fullfilled.

                Chris Coumo CORRECTLY noted that political violence is sometimes justified. He was merely wrong about when.
                Buring down Target because you beleive the police are racist is not justified.

              3. The sixth amendment assures the right to a speedy trial – for many reasons including to assure that pretrial detention is minimal.
                The 8th amendment assures a right to affordable bail.

                You seem to think that judges may do as they please – probably because all too often they do and get away with it.

                Regardless much of the judical conduct that the prosecution gets is unconstitutional.

                Detaining an innocent person for almost 2 years is a gross failure of our government – specifically the judiciary.

                You say the court “correctly” deemed them a threat. The Jury said otherwise.

                Every single time the jury aquits someone who has been detained while awaiting Trial – that is self evidently a violation of their constitutional rights, and a failure of the courts to follow the constitution.

                1. John B. Say,

                  “ The sixth amendment assures the right to a speedy trial – for many reasons including to assure that pretrial detention is minimal.
                  The 8th amendment assures a right to affordable bail.

                  You seem to think that judges may do as they please – probably because all too often they do and get away with it.”

                  It’s not what I think. It’s what the law authorizes judges to determine whether to grant bail or not. There are specific rules that determine how and when Judges may grant bail. Some crimes don’t allow bail at all.

                  The 8th Amendment only deals with affordability. It says nothing that bail must be granted by a judge.

                  “ Every single time the jury aquits someone who has been detained while awaiting Trial – that is self evidently a violation of their constitutional rights, and a failure of the courts to follow the constitution.”

                  No, that’s not how the legal system works.

                  1. “It’s not what I think.”
                    Correct – it is what the constitution says.
                    “It’s what the law authorizes judges to determine whether to grant bail or not.”
                    Not true. The constitution says you are entitled to reasonable bail – like the 2nd amendment – denying bail requires meeting a very high bar.

                    “There are specific rules that determine how and when Judges may grant bail.”
                    Yup – they are unconstitutional.
                    “Some crimes don’t allow bail at all.”
                    Nope, some crimes rarely have bail, but there is no crime for which bail is not possible.

                    “The 8th Amendment only deals with affordability.”
                    No it says reasonable – affordable is not the same thing.
                    While the meaning is pretty clear – yes, the bail must be affordable, but it also must be granted – except in the most extraordinary of circumstances.

                    “It says nothing that bail must be granted by a judge.”
                    Bzzt, wrong – it say Reasonable Bail is a right – that is why it is called the “Bill of rights”.

                    Rights are not guaranteed under absolutely all circumstances – but they are guaranteed except under the most extraordinary of circumstances.

                    ““ Every single time the jury aquits someone who has been detained while awaiting Trial – that is self evidently a violation of their constitutional rights, and a failure of the courts to follow the constitution.””
                    “No, that’s not how the legal system works.”
                    Correct – it is how the legal system has FAILED.

                    BTW I do not know why you are arguing with me – Bail tends to be a LEFT issue – not one on the right.
                    Or more accurately it is a liberal and libertarian issue.

                    But then the left today is ILLIBERAL.

                    You can deny bail to those who have skipped out on bail.
                    You can deny bail to those who have previously been convicted of violent crimes.
                    You can deny bail where there is clear evidence that witnesses have been intmidated.
                    You can deny bail where there is incredibly strong reason to beleive the accused will commit further violence.

                    You can not deny bail for non-violent crimes PERIOD.

                    The purpose of bail is to assure that the defendant shows up for trial.
                    NOT to prevent them from going on the lamb.
                    No bail that can be paid is high enough to prevent a person accused of a serious crime from going on the lamb.
                    Few people completely skip – with or without bail – because you WILL eventually be caught – unless you have the resources to flee to a country with no extradition and the money to live there and no desire to ever return. There are very few people that fits.

                    Bail is to make sure you consider the trial serious enough to show up.

                    So that sherifs do not have to go out and find you for every day in court.

                    That is really all it is for.

                  2. You have a misperception of our constitutional rights – but that is not surprising – so do the courts.

                    Being compelled to be in court does not strip you of your constitutional rights.
                    Judges have power over what goes on in the court room.
                    They have power over prosecutors out side the court room.

                    The prosecutor (or plantiff in a civil case) may not try their case in the media.
                    The defendant ALWAYS may. Free speech is a constitutional right.
                    Individuals have rights – governments do not.

                    One of the differences between you and I is that I am consistent.
                    Left right it does not matter.

                    I do not support LAWLESS actions of the left.

                    The City of Philadelphia has ordered the police to not enforce a wide variety of summary offense.
                    That is lawless. If they wish and they have the power to do so, they can rescind those laws,
                    But they can not direct law enforcement to NOT enforce the law.

                    We have the same with Democrats and the border.
                    I do not care about Title 42 – it is covid based and should Die.
                    “Remain in Mexico” is mostly similar – it is policy not law.

                    But we have actual laws that prohibit anyone from crossing our borders willy nilly as they please.
                    The executive branch is required to enforce those laws PERIOD.

                    I would prefer to see both parties address immigration reform and to allow more legal immigrants in.
                    But doing that requires changing the law.
                    What we have at our southern border today is deliberate flouting of the law by the president who is sworn to uphold the law.

                    Where you do not like the law – get the law repealed, declared unconstitutional – or change it.

                    Nor are judges there to “make” law.

                    They are their to enforce the law AS WRITTEN.
                    And where the law is unclear or unconstitutional to declare it VOID.
                    That is all.

                    Left, right or otherwise.
                    If we do not like the law as it is – we change the law – we legislate.

  2. Durham is a diversion, a nothing burger like Q. If any threat to the existing power structure of the cabal really existed don’t you think the controllers of the crash dummy in the white house or the DOJ would have long ago kicked Durham’s ass out of his cushy seat in DC? Stop counting on Trump or any other human savior to rescue our fallen empire which is never coming back. Ditch your normalcy bias and know that there is no human solutions to spiritual problems. Only our Father and His Son can recreate what we and satan have destroyed of His creation. I know none will heed this comment since truth rarely does. That’s why every single empire in 6000 years has fallen.

    1. You are discounting possibility that Durham may be doing the Lord’s work. God uses his people to accomplish His good on earth. God works through people who have free choice to do right or wrong. Yes, God is in control but His plan for us is carried out by those He chooses. Durham may or may not be chosen but to dismiss this possibility is to quit fighting evil on earth for ourselves. We should never give up or give in to evil by choosing to do nothing.

  3. Makes one wonder what was really discussed on that tarmac in Arizona during the run up to the 2016 election, doesn’t it?

  4. Anti-Trumpers are engaged not in a single conceit, but a cascade of them. First, that their nemesis is a malignant deplorable. Second, that the commissions &/or omissions they perpetrate in combatting him are morally sanctified. Third, that once Trump(ism) was vanquished, they’d revert to being solid citizens. But they never considered how addicting it is coloring outside the lines; the old song title pertains: “How ya gonna keep ’em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree’?”.

  5. The Clinton-troll army is here in full battle gear. I think Turley struck a nerve or the truth.

    1. F anything Clinton…..let them hang for treason and climb the ladder until the Kenyan F head is hanging too

  6. Did you notice how civility and decorum between political parties went out the window, whenHillary entered politics? Scorch and burn policy. No engagement with a political adversary.

  7. Did he try to Roger Stone their asses at 5 in the morning using military equipment, helicopters and Navy Seals? Perhaps that would open their mouths and make’m sing?

    1. Stone was indicted for and convicted of multiple crimes.

      Turley is writing about witnesses, not people who’ve been indicted for crimes.

        1. Roger Stone was convicted of seven felonies in November 2019. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison. President Trump vacated Stone’s sentence shortly before it was to begin and ultimately pardoned Stone in December 2020.

  8. I wish I were less cynical about the end game. I think that every one of the scoundrels who put the country through this hoax should lose their law licenses, be publicly shamed and given prison sentences appropriate to their roles and the damage caused by their lies. That includes, in particular, Clinton, Clapper, and and Comey, all of whom should be banned forever from any office of public trust.

  9. Sometimes I wish for days gone by especially when the Clintons meet the press. Public pillory and hanging were effective deterrents by abhorrence. The punishments tarring & feathering and burning at the stake curbed recidivism.

  10. Either press charges against hillary clinton or don’t. This will end up as all other cases against her and she will walk while others die. We all know very well of her history concerning deaths and she has more dead business associates and friends than most people have even met. Get her ass in the witness stand and pepper her with unregulated questions. Nobody cares who goes down with her and may they all end up in jail

  11. I have a problem , if the CIA knew early 2017 that Trump was innocent of colluding with Russia why didn’t they stop the FBI and the Mueller investigation .

    1. This suggests that someone/some group is “above” even the CIA, and can order them around, or perhaps some upper-echelon CIA crook hated Trump so much that he overrode this intelligence and ordered the continuation.

      1. Sigh.. haven’t you guys wised up yet? The ‘they’ above the CIA are anyone belonging to Freemasonry and head of important government cabinet posts. These are the Globalists who are infiltrated in all sectors of society. They are supranational in their loyalties.

    2. I’m a little confused myself.

      Is Durham making those arguments in a silo of only the Alfa Bank hoax?

      Is he looking at the origin of Steele Dossier, subsequent FISA applications, the 17 Intel Agency Russian Collusion letter and the Mueller fiasco in its own separate silo?

      Help us out Mr Turley.

    3. Oh you see the “collusion” finally. Whatever your enemy accuses you of is what they are doing in this matter. Democrats and all govt agencies were doing the colluding because they had a common enemy… the president. He actually cared more about the country than all these agencies and their schemes and deals. He was a threat to all of them. Mueller knew within just a couple of days when investigation started (if not before) that it was all a hoax. He not only let it go on, he perpetuated it and kept it alive to keep discrediting the president. Hate prevailed and self preservation. Cost taxpayers $35 million or more but hey it was worth it since they didn’t care. THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES…. at least those in command structure…. were all part and parcel of the lies. They knew but could not expose their friends without losing their place in command and also being liable for what their friends knew of their misdeeds. And when you have a shared enemy, its not a decision that requires any thinking. TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE HOAX, THE LIES, THE MEDIA, THE CLINTONS, ALL OF IT.

    1. Sussmann hasn’t been locked up so far.

      Time will tell whether the jury convicts or exonerates him.

  12. Jen Psaki is the worst lying liar POS arrogant condescending lying POS press secretary ever. When will she be personally sued for slander? She deserves to be mocked into oblivion. What a god awful POS she is.

      1. Whatever your drug of choice is, you need to stop. Both Ms. Sanders and Ms. McEnany were honest and courteous. In your addled brain, because of your allegiance to the dem Nazi party and inability to actually experience anyone telling the truth, you would stick up for Ginger Goebbels.

        1. SMH that the only way that you can imagine someone having a different opinion than you is if they’re drugged.

          1. It is entirely correct to assume you are drugged or a lamebrain to make such a statement. You could have defended Psaki, but you didn’t. Instead, you tried to tear others down. That is a dishonest approach to an honest statement made by another. That is the type of approach taken by a dishonest person.

              1. It is entirely correct to assume you are drugged or a lamebrain to make such a statement. You could have defended Psaki, but you didn’t. Instead, you tried to tear others down. That is a dishonest approach to an honest statement made by another. That is the type of approach taken by a dishonest person.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, aka Meyer the Troll Liar, you continue to troll by projecting your own faults onto others.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, you keep thinking that tearing another down causes you to rise up. Maybe that is what happens. You are a pervert.

                    1. No, Anonymous the Stupid, I was talking about this statement: “Psaki’s not nearly as bad as Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Kayleigh McEnany.” Instead of using an intellectually stupid argument of tearing another down, the comment could have built Psaki up. That would be difficult because she was bad, but that is the honest way.

                    2. The “pervert” Anonymous the Stupid you commented on is you, also known as Meyer the Troll Liar.

                    3. It’s your choice, Anonymous the Stupid, you can try and tear down Turley or anyone else, but all you do is make yourself look like a fool.

      2. Psaki is an excellent Party apparatchik, steadfastly committed to the DNC narratives_until they fall apart in the face of undeniable truths.

Leave a Reply