No problem, when do you expect the outcome? Lets just set some ground rules here. What outcome do we need where you finally admit that this was all just bullshit? If he comes back with nothing, are we going to blame it on the deep state, or will we finally get some self reflection here from you?
Especially with Biden's son adding to the muck with his 93 laptops. Luckily the right people are on that story too.
Honestly happy for Durham. I was starting to feel bad for making fun of him for so long. He's got a little to show now before the budget year is over. But I do think this case is interesting. The indictment is around the allegation from way back that there were suspicious data communications between the Trump campaign and a Russian bank. I remember I found that story pretty compelling back then and it meaningfully contributed to my suspicion that Trump's pro-Russian position might be more than arm's-length. If Durham can prove that story was a lie, and worse if that story was a lie paid for by the Clinton campaign, that would change my view of the history of the 2016 election. What it wouldn't do is convince me that Trump was somehow not a terrible president. And it wouldn't convince me that Trump didn't know about and welcome help from Putin's anti-Clinton campaign. It would also not completely bury my concern that there was coordination between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. But I'd be more skeptical of that and of the allegation that there was any financial transaction between them.
I actually do find it interesting as well, and am interested to see where that lead goes. However, we'll still have to remind people that we are still talking about a guy who had a letter of intent directly with the freaking Kremlin to build Trump Tower Moscow as he's campaigning for President... while the Kremlin is working to get him elected. We also cannot forget the direct connection of Trump's #1 campaign manager meeting directly with a Kremlin operative offering him private polling data, and that operative linking directly with the Russian troll farms, etc. Like yeah... the guy "colluded".... but this part of it might just give more context on some on the Clinton side knowing this, and potentially getting beyond the facts... which of course is not good, and stupid because the facts alone should have been damning enough.
this bit from Paragraph six gives a good indication that there is more here than just this one indictment. Sussmann Indictment | PDF (scribd.com)
I'm doubtful. If he had a significant case for anyone else, he'd have announced indictments for everyone at the same time. Maybe you can hope that Sussman will testify against someone else to get a break on his own indictment. According to the indictment, the data communications between Trump Org and Alpha Bank were not fabricated (though it mentions that the FBI found that it might have been pings from an advertising vendor). They don't even say that Sussman believed that the data story was misleading. Sussman's lie was that he said he wasn't working for any client when he delivered this data story to the FBI, when allegedly he was working for the Clinton Campaign. I suppose to be able to indict anyone else, you'd have to show that people in the Clinton Campaign knew that Sussman would deny working for them (or even that they directed him to say so) when he talked to the FBI, when really he was -- though I'm not sure conspiracy to lie to the FBI is a thing.
the timing of the Sussman indictment is about SOL. one should not construe that to mean this is the extent of the conspiracy.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-d...linton-campaign-11631917159?mod=hp_opin_pos_1 Durham Cracks the Russia Case The special counsel’s indictment tells the real story of 2016 collusion. By The Editorial Board Sept. 17, 2021 6:38 pm ET John Durham on Thursday indicted a Clinton campaign lawyer from 2016 for lying to the FBI, but this is no ho-hum case of deception. The special counsel’s 27-page indictment is full of new, and damning, details that underscore how the Russia collusion tale was concocted and peddled by the Clinton campaign. Mr. Durham charged Michael Sussmann, an attorney at the Perkins Coie law firm that represented the Clinton campaign. Mr. Sussmann is accused of making false statements to then-FBI general counsel James Baker in a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting when he presented documents purporting to show secret internet communications between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa bank. The indictment says Mr. Sussmann assured Mr. Baker he was not doing this work “‘for any client,’ which led the FBI General Counsel to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative.” This was false, says the indictment, which documents how Mr. Sussmann was working with other Democrats (including fellow Perkins Coie lawyer Marc Elias ) and billing his time to the Clinton campaign. Mr. Sussmann’s lie “deprived the FBI” of crucial information, says the indictment, and led the agency to initiate an investigation into the Trump-Alfa claim, which was quickly leaked to the media. Mr. Sussmann didn’t lie to the FBI to protect himself. He is accused of lying to the FBI to trigger an investigation into a rival campaign based on a false claim of Russia-Trump collusion. He has pleaded not guilty. The indictment adds new details about the sweeping nature of the Clinton campaign’s effort to falsely tag Donald Trump as in bed with the Russians. The document alleges this extended far beyond the oppo-research firm Fusion GPS and the fake “dossier” produced by Christopher Steele —though both played a role in the broader effort. The indictment says the Alfa bank allegations came via an unidentified tech executive (“Tech Executive-1”), who according to one of his emails expected to get the “top [cybersecurity] job” in a Clinton Administration. The executive owned internet companies that had access to vast amounts of “public and nonpublic” data. The exec was tipped to purported traffic between Alfa bank and a Trump email domain and alerted Mr. Sussmann. The executive ordered his employees to “search and analyze their holdings of public and non public internet data for derogatory information on Trump. He also enlisted researchers at an unidentified U.S. university. The goal of the searches, says the indictment, was to “support an ‘inference’ and ‘narrative’ regarding Trump that would please certain ‘VIPs.’” These searches came up with little or nothing. But the executive handed the innuendo to Mr. Sussmann, who wrote white papers he handed to the FBI and worked with Fusion GPS and Mr. Elias to feed it to a credulous press corps. Mr. Sussmann’s meeting with the FBI’s Mr. Baker gave the media a hook to write that law enforcement was investigating the Trump-Russia ties. The FBI opened its probe into Mr. Trump, which cascaded into the collusion political frenzy that damaged the Trump Presidency for more than two years. The narrow Sussmann indictment opens another the window on a far greater offense, which was the Clinton team and the media’s dirty trick against U.S. democracy. The indictment alleges that Mr. Elias kept Clinton campaign officials informed about the scam, including the “campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor.” Mr. Durham was facing a five-year statute of limitations on the false statement case, but the details in his indictment suggest that the charge may not be the end of this sordid story. Appeared in the September 18, 2021, print edition.
Turley haters need not read https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/20/clinton-lawyers-indictment-reveals-bag-of-tricks/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...uces-an-iffy-indictment-is-this-all-there-is/ John Durham’s zombie Russia investigation produces an iffy indictment. Is this all there is? After more than two years and the persistent goading of former president Donald Trump, special counsel John Durham, the lawyer Trump-era attorney general William P. Barr tapped to probe the Justice Department’s 2016 Russia investigation, finally did something on Thursday. He indicted attorney Michael Sussmann for "allegedly" lying to the FBI. This, to put it mildly, is not the confirmation of some broad 2016 deep-state conspiracy against Mr. Trump that the former president apparently desired. The danger of special counsel investigations is that, given unlimited time and resources, they often find some bad action tangentially related to their original inquiry that may have had little or no substantial negative impact. Mr. Durham has uncovered alleged wrongdoing that has little to do with whether federal officials tried to sabotage the Trump campaign The case against Mr. Sussmann is iffy. It revolves around a Sept. 19, 2016, meeting Mr. Sussmann had with James Baker, an FBI lawyer, in which Mr. Sussmann relayed concerns about curious Internet data that may have indicated that Mr. Trump, then a candidate for president, was in secret contact with Alfa Bank, a Russian financial institution. Mr. Baker claims that Mr. Sussmann said he was not representing any client during the meeting, when he was in fact working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Mr. Sussmann denies he said that, and he argues that he was not technically representing the campaign during the meeting, anyway. The indictment claims that had Mr. Sussmann informed the FBI of his ties to the Clinton campaign, they might have taken a different view of the information he presented. This is not the same as saying that investigators would have taken substantially different actions as a result. Indeed, the indictment admits that federal officials knew about Mr. Sussmann’s associations. Investigators would have examined the strange Internet traffic anyway, and dismissed the alleged Trump-Alfa Bank connection, as they did. Even if true, the Sussmann episode is far less alarming than the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, whom Mr. Barr moved to protect from punishment and Mr. Trump later pardoned. Mr. Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, an issue of central importance to the investigation of the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia. The consequences of Mr. Sussmann’s alleged lie are minimal by comparison. The Justice Department indicated Thursday that Mr. Durham’s investigation is ongoing. So far there are no indications he has uncovered anything suggesting an illegitimate government plot to subvert the 2016 Trump campaign — or even that the Russia inquiry was unwarranted. That is because the facts already public proved long ago that there was ample reason for federal investigators to launch and pursue the Russia investigation. If Mr. Durham has nothing more compelling coming, he should bring an end to this long-running exercise.
Farts have been more incriminating and Damning than this multi-year multi-million dollar endeavor from a Republican controlled government. Many thanks to the party of fiscal responsibility...
The goal for Durham with Barr/Republicans was and still is to simply be there in an opportunistic fashion. The gameplan is always the same. Use something like Whitewater as a mechanism for investigation, find a dress with c*m stains on it.
in 2016, a group of computer scientists disclosed, on the basis of DNS (Domain Name System) logs, that two internet servers belonging to Alfa Bank had looked up the address of the Trump Organization server 2,820 times between May and September 2016. in 2020, they and others were summoned to testify to a grand jury impanelled by John Durham to investigate potential criminal conduct in the Russia probe. Then came the Durham’s report, which has concluded that there is no evidence of communication between the Trump campaign and Alpha Bank’s (US-based bank controlled by Russian oligarch/ Putin) server; thus, Sussman’s assertion to the contrary must be a lie. Sussman’s sources (computer data scientists in academia) must be making up the lies but lawyers of these accused liars have boomerang against Durham’s convenient claim. they have provided documented proof of the server communications between Trump campaign/ Alpha bank in 2016 a copy of the email sent to Durham describing the server communications The Contested Afterlife of the Trump-Alfa Bank Story
