Author Topic: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, and related matters  (Read 145738 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22550
    • View Profile
Re: Durham to seek jail for one FBI person
« Reply #1300 on: January 29, 2021, 10:23:49 AM »
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/clinesmith-fbi-guilty-special-counsel/2021/01/29/id/1007758/

big deal  :roll:

what a joke

The Deep State takes care of it's own. I'm betting he doesn't lose his bar card.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22550
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, and related matters
« Reply #1303 on: January 29, 2021, 02:01:24 PM »
Durham going up against the heavweight DC lawyers

is like Marcia Clark going up against the World Class Dream Team

let me see that "frightening" tough rough prosecutor school picture for the millionth time as though the Left should be terrified:

https://time.com/5693083/john-durham-justice-department-investigation/

maybe we should have a thread

"the non accomplishments " of Bill Barr

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22550
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, and related matters
« Reply #1304 on: January 29, 2021, 04:32:44 PM »
Durham going up against the heavweight DC lawyers

is like Marcia Clark going up against the World Class Dream Team

let me see that "frightening" tough rough prosecutor school picture for the millionth time as though the Left should be terrified:

https://time.com/5693083/john-durham-justice-department-investigation/

maybe we should have a thread

"the non accomplishments " of Bill Barr

He ran out the clock. That was what he intended. Mission accomplished.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15702
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary's lie
« Reply #1306 on: September 23, 2021, 06:28:23 AM »
https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=9e98fb5d28ecf7e72f390d2148b86358_614c7ff6_6d25b5f&selDate=20210923

Hillary looks really bad in this, if anyone looks.

Washington Times links aren't taking me directly to the story intended.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
DNC computers NOT hacked by Russians
« Reply #1307 on: October 09, 2021, 09:10:15 AM »
they were hacked by ordinary thumb drive

and later made to look like Russians did it by "gucifer":

https://spectator.org/john-durham-and-the-mysterious-dnc-email-hack/

this furthered the Russia interfered with the election HOAX


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15702
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: November 07, 2021, 06:31:34 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
A. McCarthy estimation of Durham invest.
« Reply #1309 on: November 09, 2021, 08:57:34 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/where-john-durhams-investigation-is-heading/

the big shots get off is his call
as THEY NEARLY ALWAYS DO

can't get big shot DC wheeler and dealers
just can't

above the law

 :-(

angry, but expected this anyway

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22550
    • View Profile
Re: A. McCarthy estimation of Durham invest.
« Reply #1310 on: November 09, 2021, 09:38:08 AM »

Paywalled. Did Deep State Andy do his mandatory tongue bath for his DOJ buddies?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/where-john-durhams-investigation-is-heading/

the big shots get off is his call
as THEY NEARLY ALWAYS DO

can't get big shot DC wheeler and dealers
just can't

above the law

 :-(

angry, but expected this anyway

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15702
    • View Profile
Re: A. McCarthy estimation of Durham invest.
« Reply #1311 on: November 09, 2021, 12:12:22 PM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/subscribe
IF he's right, this is disappointing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week’s indictment of Igor Danchenko has the commentariat buzzing. If special counsel John Durham has cracked the core of the Russiagate case, if he has established that the Steele dossier on which the FBI substantially based its spy warrants was fraudulent, does that mean he is nearing a sweeping conspiracy indictment? Will there be criminal charges that target the real 2016 collusion — not between the Trump campaign and Russia, but between the Clinton campaign and U.S. officials who abused government investigative powers for political purposes?

Almost certainly not.

All signs are that Durham will end his investigation with a narrative report. It has looked that way for a long time. There are reasons why then-attorney general Bill Barr appointed then-Connecticut U.S. attorney Durham as a special counsel shortly before the Trump administration ended.

Unlike ordinary federal prosecutors, who either file charges or close investigations without comment, special counsels are required by regulation to write a report for the attorney general. As we saw with special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in 2019, there is typically great outside pressure on the AG to make such reports public (though doing so is not required). Barr obviously knew enough about Durham’s investigation to grasp that there was unlikely to be a grand, overarching criminal-conspiracy case; there had, however, been rampant malfeasance and abuse of power that might never come to light absent a comprehensive investigative report.

I am not saying there will be no more indictments. There could be. But if there are, they will likely be similar to the indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko — who, you no doubt noticed, were separately charged, and are not alleged to have conspired with each other or anyone else. Those indictments imply that Durham has uncovered a Clinton-campaign scheme to leverage the Obama/Biden administration’s investigative powers against Clinton’s political opponent, Trump. Yet, Durham has charged the two defendants only with lying to the FBI. And tellingly, he did not file charges against people with whom Danchenko and Sussmann collaborated in supplying specious information to investigators, much less accuse the investigators themselves of misconduct.

At work here is the same phenomenon I addressed during the Mueller probe when predicting that there would be no “Trump-Russia collusion” conspiracy charges. If Mueller had had such a case, he would have brought it against the first defendants he charged — especially the ones who’d agreed to cooperate with his investigators. The way a prosecutor builds a big conspiracy case is by getting the suspects to admit the existence of the conspiracy and the roles they played in it. Charging the small fish with comparatively minor crimes doesn’t get you there. And you don’t develop effective cooperating witnesses by having them plead guilty only to being liars — which, were they later to testify, would be the first thing the jury learned about them.

Let’s think about Durham’s investigation. If there were a grand conspiracy to prosecute, it would have to center on some scheme to defraud the court and obstruct judicial proceedings. Furthermore, for it to have been as heinous as the most outraged Trump supporter believes it was, Obama-administration officials — or at the very least, FBI agents — would have to be implicated.

Now, consider Danchenko. If anyone were to have been instrumental in such a scheme, he would be the guy. He is the principal source of the scurrilous information in the dossier compiled by his associate Christopher Steele. There is reason to suspect he knew that Steele was sharing information with the U.S. government, which, in turn, was using it as a predicate to investigate Trump — perhaps even to seek eavesdropping warrants from federal judges.

But what does Durham charge Danchenko with? Lying to the FBI. And not even lying about the all-important substance of the information he communicated to Steele, but just about the sources from whom he heard it.

To be sure, there is abundant reason to believe Danchenko knew that what he told Steele was nonsense, and that Steele had to have known it was at least highly suspect. But Durham doesn’t allege that; he goes for two charges that should be much easier to prove. He alleges that Danchenko knowingly lied when claiming some of the dossier information came from Trump associate Sergey Millian, and when claiming none of it came from Clinton crony Charles Dolan.

And lied, it must be emphasized, to the FBI.

For those of us who’ve closely followed it, the most dismaying part of the collusion caper (as we observed in our editorial over the weekend) has been the FBI’s abuse of its investigative authorities. Durham is not saying, in his indictments, that there was no such abuse — as in recklessness, incompetence, and failure to be as forthright with the court as the law and agency procedures require. But he is also not alleging that the FBI — either as an institution, or in a conspiracy among individual agents — defrauded the court or otherwise obstructed justice.

Sussmann, like Danchenko, was indicted for allegedly lying to the FBI. And, like Danchenko’s indictment, the Sussmann indictment avoids the question of whether the defendant actually believed the substance of his suspicions about Trump. Sussmann is not accused of lying when he claimed that Trump was using Alfa Bank as a conduit for secret communications with the Kremlin; he is alleged to have deceptively concealed that he was advancing this claim on behalf of clients — the Clinton campaign and a tech executive who was hoping for a government job if Clinton defeated Trump.

There is one FBI official who can be said to have caused misinformation to be given to the FISA court, lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. But he was indicted for lying to an FBI agent about whether the CIA had informed the bureau that Carter Page had been an agency informant, not for defrauding the court. In fact, in sentencing him to no jail time, the judge (implausibly) seemed to accept that Clinesmith did not intend to deceive the court.

The bottom line of all this is that Durham’s position is that the FBI was duped, not that it was part of a grand conspiracy.

It may well be true — I think it is true — that the FBI was predisposed to believe the worst about Donald Trump. This predisposition, if it existed, would almost certainly have influenced the bureau’s dereliction in failing to take rudimentary steps to verify the outlandish allegations being made about Trump before relying on them for investigative purposes (including in sworn court applications). The FBI would thus be culpable, in a practical and moral sense, for enabling the Clinton campaign to exploit government power for political purposes. But plainly, Durham is not going to allege that FBI officials knowingly and willfully conspired to deceive the court.

Let’s remember, moreover, some other relevant history.

During the 2020 campaign, then-AG Barr made clear that former president Obama and vice president Biden were not subjects of Durham’s investigation. There was also public reporting that former CIA director John Brennan, who energetically hyped the Trump–Russia-collusion narrative, was told he was not a subject of Durham’s investigation before submitting to at least one extensive interview. And in congressional testimony (among other public statements), while then-AG Barr was blistering in his criticism of the FBI, he allowed that its excesses may have been driven by overzealousness, not criminal intent. That is, bureau higher-ups may have been sincerely concerned, based on flimsy evidence, about Russian infiltration of the Trump campaign, as opposed to intentionally collaborating with Trump’s political opposition — they may have been incompetent, rather than malevolent.

Clearly, these are not the makings of a prosecutable conspiracy that put the government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of Democratic Party objectives to get Mrs. Clinton elected and, failing that, to undermine Trump’s administration.

Of course, that doesn’t mean such a conspiracy didn’t exist. The government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus did in fact serve the Democrats’ anti-Trump objectives. For a criminal prosecution, though, it is not sufficient to prove that something bad happened. Prosecutors must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bad thing happened because the participants knowingly and willfully planned it that way.

It looks like Durham can’t prove that.

That’s not surprising. As I elaborated in Ball of Collusion, many things that smack of abuse of power are not prosecutable crimes. The law necessarily gives government officials a wide berth to use aggressive investigative measures based on dubious suspicions. It is easy to see the abuse, but much harder to establish it as a crime. That is why a system that fails to hold abusive officials politically accountable will be a failed system. Establishing their criminal guilt is much harder.

Political dirty tricks are similarly ill-suited to criminal prosecution. We don’t want the FBI and Justice Department poking around campaigns and elections. Politicians habitually paint opponents in the worst light and tell the public many terrible things about them — gross exaggerations as well as flat-out falsehoods. Sadly, it is not all that unusual for the demagoguery to include allegations of criminal misconduct and traitorous corruption. Such allegations, when unsupported by evidence, are morally reprehensible. On occasion, they may even be slanderous under the civil law. But political mudslinging is generally not serious enough to warrant prosecution because we want our politics cordoned off from intrusion by the incumbent party’s criminal investigators.

For all these reasons, Durham has long appeared, at least to my eyes, to be heading toward a narrative final report, not a sweeping criminal indictment. Both of his recent indictments, in their rich detail, are consistent with the theory that “Trump–Russia collusion” was a political narrative concocted by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Campaign operatives spun and manufactured the collusion “evidence.” They understood that the Obama administration shared their baleful view of Trump and that the media would be onboard. And with those built-in advantages, they calculated that Obama administration national-security and law-enforcement officials were open to believing and airing dark suspicions about Trump.

It will make for an infuriating report. But not a criminal indictment.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22550
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, and related matters
« Reply #1312 on: November 09, 2021, 12:21:41 PM »
“It looks like Durham can’t prove that.“

No, it looks like he isn’t even trying, and Deep State Andy knows it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, and related matters
« Reply #1313 on: November 09, 2021, 05:23:05 PM »
Ugh.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
Wash Post retracts support of Russia collusion
« Reply #1314 on: November 15, 2021, 08:15:06 AM »
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/wapo-retracts-steele-dossier-russia-collusion-reporting-points-finger-at-hillary-clinton/

"better late then never"???

doesn't do much good now.......

perhaps they are sacrificing Hillary to protect
their icon Baraq?

who HAD to be in on it.

hillary is junk in the basement
while Baraq et al  is still the silent leader behind the Left.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15702
    • View Profile
Re: Wash Post retracts support of Russia collusion
« Reply #1315 on: November 15, 2021, 08:56:04 AM »
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/wapo-retracts-steele-dossier-russia-collusion-reporting-points-finger-at-hillary-clinton/

"better late then never"???

doesn't do much good now.......

perhaps they are sacrificing Hillary to protect
their icon Baraq?

who HAD to be in on it.

hillary is junk in the basement
while Baraq et al  is still the silent leader behind the Left.


Yes, doesn't do much good now.  They are protecting only themselves, but guilt is guilt and the correction is peanuts.  They won a Pulitzer on false reporting of a false story.  Complete shame and not one liberal faults them.  False is true?  George Orwell's 1984 was not a how-to guide.   Try, try again.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
it is going to be Mueller Comey 2.0
« Reply #1316 on: November 30, 2021, 11:27:58 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/28/michael-cohen-trump-organization-investigations

since we are going to get Trump again for '24 we are going to have to live through this stuff again .....

I have a headache already

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15702
    • View Profile
Re: it is going to be Mueller Comey 2.0
« Reply #1317 on: November 30, 2021, 02:04:53 PM »
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/28/michael-cohen-trump-organization-investigations
since we are going to get Trump again for '24 we are going to have to live through this stuff again .....
I have a headache already

Convicted liar on "Meet the Press".  Stir it up again.  Let me guess, didn't get to the Hunter story.

Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance leaves in one month.  We'll know soon enough if he files charges.  Charges for WHAT?  If it's a clear-cut case, what's the holdup?  And why dump it on your successor if you have a career making case?

So far Michael Cohen has only succeeded at being a tool.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
Jan 6 Committee reports maybe this summer and fall
« Reply #1319 on: December 29, 2021, 07:36:25 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile
Byron York: Of course they spied on Trump
« Reply #1321 on: February 14, 2022, 10:43:07 AM »


OF COURSE THEY SPIED ON TRUMP. One of the most contentious claims Donald Trump ever made was his insistence that he had been the target of spying. He made the charge in several different ways. For example, in March 2017, Trump, just two months in office, tweeted, "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!" Two years later, in April 2019, he was less specific but equally adamant when he said, "There was absolutely spying into my campaign." In August 2020, during his Republican National Committee acceptance speech, he said, "Remember this: They spied on my campaign."

 

Each time, all the usual anti-Trump voices rushed to accuse the president of lying. But over the years, a series of facts emerged that, while they did not support some of Trump's most specific charges — Obama did not wiretap Trump in Trump Tower — did support the larger idea that Trump was indeed the target of spying.

 

We learned that in the final days of the 2016 presidential race, when the Clinton campaign came up with the Steele dossier, a collection of sensational and unsupported allegations about Trump and Russia, the FBI used the dossier to win approval to wiretap Carter Page, a low-level former Trump campaign adviser. Then we learned that also in 2016, the FBI used a confidential informant, a professor named Stefan Halper, to spy on Page and George Papadopoulos, another low-level Trump adviser. Then we learned that in 2016, the FBI sent an undercover agent — a woman who used the alias Azra Turk — to secretly record conversations with Papadopoulos.

 

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!


 

So, there is ample evidence to say that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Now we are learning about another type of spying — the Clinton campaign spying on the Trump campaign. The revelations are coming from the investigation of John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the Trump administration, and retained by the Biden administration, to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.

 

In a court filing Friday, Durham reported that in July 2016, a tech executive named Rodney Joffe (he is unnamed in the court papers, but the name has been widely reported) worked with the Clinton campaign's law firm to "mine Internet data," some of it "non-public and/or proprietary" — that means secret — to search for information that could be used to claim a Trump-Russia connection. Among the secret data that was "exploited," according to Durham, was internet traffic from Trump Tower, from Donald Trump's Central Park West apartment building, and — after Trump was elected president — the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Joffe's company, Durham says, "had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement" — a government contract — to provide tech services. They then "exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's [Internet] traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump."

 

After that, the Clinton team went to the CIA to try to get the nation's spy agency interested in the anti-Trump effort. That mirrored earlier Clinton approaches to the FBI, when Clinton operatives tried to interest agents on what is known as the "Alfa Bank" story, which was a phony allegation that there were all sorts of suspicious connections between a Russian bank and the Trump campaign.

 

The bigger goal of all of it, Durham says, was "to establish 'an inference' and 'narrative' tying then-candidate Trump to Russia." So there was a two-track operation going on: While the FBI was doing spying of its own, the Clinton team was spying, too, and trying to get the FBI and CIA involved. It was all part of a larger plan to push the "narrative" of Trump-Russia collusion.

 

How did it end? You'll remember that a special counsel, Robert Mueller, using all the resources and powers of federal law enforcement, searched for collusion for years and could never establish that it happened, much less that any Trump campaign figures might have been involved.

 

Going to the FBI and CIA had tactical advantages for the Clinton campaign, in this way: If a Clinton operative approached a member of the press, claiming to have hot information about a Trump-Russia connection, the reporter, even if normally biased toward Democrats, might view it skeptically. After all, consider the source — a campaign flak trying to plant a story. But if the Clinton operative approached the press with information that the FBI was investigating a possible Trump-Russia connection — that's news! If the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating Trump, that's a big story, in and of itself. And indeed, that is how the dossier ultimately got into public circulation, when sources told CNN that the country's top intel chiefs had briefed Trump on it.

 

The new revelation is confirmation for some of the Republicans who uncovered the early clues of the spying operation. "Democrat-paid operatives illegally hacked their political opponents' communications during a presidential campaign and then did it again to a sitting president and the White House staff," said Devin Nunes, who as House Intelligence Committee chairman investigated the spying allegations. "These actions are characteristic of third-world dictatorships, not democracies. It is undoubtedly the biggest political scandal of our lifetime." (Nunes, who just left Congress, is now CEO of the new Trump social media venture.)

 

For former President Donald Trump, the message was much simpler. On Sunday, he sent out an email statement that read, simply: "THEY SPIED ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!"

 

Yes, they did.

 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15702
    • View Profile
Re: Byron York: Of course they spied on Trump
« Reply #1322 on: February 14, 2022, 11:52:27 AM »
A family member used this in 2016, Trump said his campaign was "wiretapped", as an example of how he is nuts, paranoid, unfit, etc.

She was right - if you believe Lying Narrative News.

Over and over and over again, he keeps getting proved right and "fake news" keeps getting proved fake.

As I just posted on the media thread, perhaps worse than Lying News is Omission News.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2022, 12:04:25 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22550
    • View Profile
Re: Byron York: Of course they spied on Trump
« Reply #1323 on: February 14, 2022, 02:13:10 PM »
A family member used this in 2016, Trump said his campaign was "wiretapped", as an example of how he is nuts, paranoid, unfit, etc.

She was right - if you believe Lying Narrative News.

Over and over and over again, he keeps getting proved right and "fake news" keeps getting proved fake.

As I just posted on the media thread, perhaps worse than Lying News is Omission News.

Who is going to prison for this?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile
The WSJ weighs in
« Reply #1324 on: February 14, 2022, 06:20:53 PM »
Special Counsel John Durham continues to unravel the Trump-Russia “collusion” story, and his latest court disclosure contains startling information. According to a Friday court filing, the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign effort to compile dirt on Donald Trump reached into protected White House communications.




The filing relates to Mr. Durham’s September indictment of Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who represented the Clinton campaign while he worked for the Perkins Coie law firm. Mr. Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI at a September 2016 meeting when he presented documents claiming to show secret internet communications between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank. The indictment says Mr. Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was presenting this information solely as a good citizen—failing to disclose his ties to the Clinton campaign. (He has pleaded not guilty.)







OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH

The Global Fallout if Russia Invades Ukraine







00:00

1x



SUBSCRIBE

The indictment revealed that Mr. Sussmann worked with “Tech Executive-1,” who has been identified as Rodney Joffe, formerly of Neustar Inc. The indictment says Mr. Joffe used his companies, as well as researchers at a U.S. university, to access internet data, which he used to gather information about Mr. Trump’s communications.




Mr. Durham says Mr. Joffe’s “goal” was to create an “inference” and “narrative” about Mr. Trump that would “please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at [Perkins Coie] and the Clinton Campaign.”

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.

PREVIEW




SUBSCRIBED




***

The new shocker relates to the data Mr. Joffe and friends were mining. According to Friday’s filing, as early as July 2016 Mr. Joffe was “exploit[ing]” his “access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” including “Internet traffic pertaining to . . . the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”).”




The filing explains that Mr. Joffe’s employer “had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided [internet services]” to the White House. Mr. Joffe’s team also was monitoring internet traffic related to Trump Tower, and Mr. Trump’s apartment on Central Park West.

White House communications are supposed to be secure, and the notion that any contractor—much less one with ties to a presidential campaign—could access them is alarming enough. The implication that the data was exploited for a political purpose is a scandal that requires investigation under oath.




The filing suggests the data collection continued into the Trump Presidency. Mr. Durham says that on Feb. 9, 2017, Mr. Sussmann met with a second federal agency (“Agency-2”) to provide “an updated set of allegations,” and that these “allegations relied, in part, on the purported [internet traffic] that [Mr. Joffe] and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP” and a healthcare provider.




(Late Monday a spokesperson for Mr. Joffe said in a statement that “contrary to the allegations in this recent filing, Mr. Joffe is an apolitical internet security expert with decades of service to the U.S Government who has never worked for a political party.” The statement added that “there were serious and legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election” and that “respected cyber-security researchers were deeply concerned about the anomalies they found in the data and prepared a report of their findings, which was subsequently shared with the CIA.”) That could certainly use some elaboration.




The filing says the new allegations Mr. Sussmann provided—claiming suspicious ties between a Russian mobile phone operator and the White House—were also bogus, and that Mr. Sussmann again made the false claim that he wasn’t working on behalf of a client.

***

The disclosures raise troubling questions far beyond the Sussmann indictment. How long did this snooping last and who had access to what was found? Who approved the access to White House data, and who at the FBI and White House knew about it? Were Mrs. Clinton and senior campaign aides personally aware of this data-trolling operation?




Mr. Durham’s revelations take the 2016 collusion scam well beyond the Steele dossier, which was based on the unvetted claims of a Russian emigre working in Washington. Those claims and the Sussmann assertions were channeled to the highest levels of the government via contacts at the FBI, CIA and State Department. They became fodder for secret and unjustified warrants against a former Trump campaign official, and later for Robert Mueller’s two-year mole hunt that turned up no evidence of collusion.




Along the way the Clinton campaign fed these bogus claims to a willing and gullible media. And now we know its operatives used private tech researchers to monitor White House communications. If you made this up, you’d be laughed out of a Netflix story pitch.




Mr. Durham’s legal filing is related to certain conflicts of interest in Mr. Sussmann’s legal team, and it remains unclear where else his probe is going. But the unfolding information underscores that the Russia collusion story was one of the dirtiest tricks in U.S. political history. Mr. Durham should tell the whole sordid story.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15702
    • View Profile
Re: The WSJ weighs in
« Reply #1325 on: February 15, 2022, 06:38:41 AM »
"The disclosures raise troubling questions far beyond the Sussmann indictment. How long did this snooping last and who had access to what was found? Who approved the access to White House data, and who at the FBI and White House knew about it? Were Mrs. Clinton and senior campaign aides personally aware of this data-trolling operation?"
-----------
What did she know and when did she know it.

First we expect the defense of plausible deniability.  Facts prove the campaign did this but unless someone flips, and no one will, they can't prove she ordered it and knowingly benefited from it.

The contradictory explanation is that the criminality stinks from the head.  Her whole political narrative is that she is highly involved in everything.  She was co-president, not a ceremonial first lady.  She was involved in every minute detail right down to shutting up Juanita Broadrick, even naming Bill's distractions as bimbo eruptions.  He wasn't cheating with women of substance like her, these were all just bimbos, no cost in personally destroying them. They perfected the practice of personal destruction and their friend Trump now stood in their way and made a very big and easy target.

It isn't a question of when she knew, it's an evidentiary question of whether prosecutors can avoid finding out it was all her evil idea.

The criminal consequences aside, can't everyone see it was her who ordered it, used it and benefited politically from it using basic pattern recognition skills?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2022, 06:51:56 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
More LEFTIST contortions
« Reply #1326 on: February 15, 2022, 08:21:36 AM »

"Trump and his allies"

claiming this is "proof " of spying :

https://news.yahoo.com/tech-exec-used-access-white-013032349.html

this when we claim anything it is Trump and Republicans

and not proof ( shyster obfuscation)

the next step is this will be labelled a

"conspiracy theory "

that still had no merit

 :-(

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile
Tucker: Trump was right!
« Reply #1327 on: February 15, 2022, 01:10:17 PM »




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, and related matters
« Reply #1331 on: February 16, 2022, 08:16:40 AM »
"Because some people care about AJ. Nothing will come from Durham."

yes

no *willing* controlling legal authority

we all know hillary spied
we all know intelligence people were doing same
we all know it likely happens all day long
in DC
like at Wall St
like corporate espionage - all day long


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile
McCarthy: Welcome to the Swamp Mr. Durham
« Reply #1333 on: February 19, 2022, 11:33:08 PM »
Welcome to the Swamp, Mr. Durham
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
February 19, 2022 6:30 AM


Left: U.S. Attorney John Durham. Right: Michael Sussmann on C-SPAN in 2016. (United States Attorney's Office, District of Connecticut/Wikimedia; Screenshot via C-SPAN)
For the special counsel, the prosecution of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann in a Washington, D.C., courtroom will not be a home game.


Roy Cohn, the notorious rogue lawyer and Donald Trump confidant, famously said, “Don’t tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.” And the judge in Special Counsel John Durham’s prosecution of Michael Sussmann will have to decide a point of false-statements law: materiality.

Sussmann, of course, is the former Perkins Coie lawyer who represented the Democratic National Committee (DNC), among other notable political clients. The case against him stems from his efforts to peddle to government investigative agencies the political slander that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Vladimir Putin’s Russian regime — at bottom, he is alleged to have concealed that the main client on whose behalf he labored in this endeavor was the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The crescendo toward which Durham appears to be building is a final report that will show the Trump–Russia “collusion” innuendo that gripped the country for three years was essentially concocted by Mrs. Clinton and her minions. Though some comparatively minor crimes may have been committed along the way, such a partisan scheme would not necessarily be a crime in and of itself. It would, however, be one of the dirtiest, swampiest political tricks of all time.

Sussmann’s trial is scheduled for May, but the case has already whipped Washington into a frenzy with allegations of political spying, counterclaims of a political witch-hunt, and now, the return of the ponderous Hillary herself. Shaking off her latest crash-and-burn, Mrs. C is back making speeches again, wheedling her way into position as the Democrats’ go-to 2024 alternative in the not-unforeseeable event that President Biden continues to stumble and Vice President Kamala Harris continues to speak. At a state Democratic convention in New York Thursday, Clinton could be heard inveighing that this latest criminal investigation hovering about her — which seems like the millionth criminal investigation to hover about her over the last 30 years — is yet another “right-wing lie” whose proponents are bordering on “actual malice” against her. (New York Times readers and Sarah Palin fans will recognize actual malice as the standard for proving libel — Hillary! remains subtle as ever.)


It’s pretty standard fare: Sussmann claims there is no false statement as a matter of law because, he contends, Durham can’t prove that the alleged lie to the FBI was material. Materiality is the low-hurdle requirement that, to be prosecutable, a lie has to have been material to some decision the government had to make (like whether it would have been important to know, before deciding to pursue an investigation, that an explosive allegation that one major-party presidential candidate was a Putin puppet had actually been ginned up by the other major-party candidate).

The court will eventually rule on the Sussmann camp’s dismissal motion. In a high-profile, politically fraught case like this one, though, it would be most unusual for a judge to take it on himself to throw the indictment out before trial. Materiality is one of those “mixed questions of law and fact,” as they say in the biz — the jury decides whether, in fact, a lie was material, but the decision is controlled by legal precedents, so the judge also has the power to determine that the prosecutor hasn’t shown enough proof of materiality for the question to be submitted to the jury. The judge will get several other bites at this apple as the proceedings move along — during trial, when the prosecution rests, right before summations, and even post-trial if the jury finds Sussmann guilty — so there is no need to rule pretrial.

The issue, however, is central to the Sussmann case. Which brings us back to Cohn’s question: Who is the judge? Who is presiding over this case in which the machinations of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the Democrats’ Trump–Russia obsession, are the heart of the matter?

Funny you should ask. The case is assigned to Judge Christopher R. “Casey” Cooper, who was appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2014.

Judge Cooper is a protégé of the late Judge Abner J. Mikva, for whom he clerked on the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993. Some of us of a certain age remember Judge Mikva as White House counsel to President Bill Clinton.

Mikva took that top Clinton-administration job in 1994, the same year Cooper joined the Justice Department as a special assistant to Clinton’s appointed deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick. While Cooper worked for Gorelick from 1994 until 1996, a major issue for the DOJ was the interplay, in terrorism cases, of crime-investigation techniques and foreign-intelligence collection under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). At the time, FISA surveillance applications were reviewed by the DOJ’s Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR). By 1996, another young prosecutor, James Baker, was working at OIPR.

Like Cooper and Baker, Michael Sussmann also worked at the Justice Department during the Clinton era. Like Baker, he stayed there for many years working on national-security issues. Eventually, Sussmann became an expert in cybersecurity law, which was his niche in private practice at Perkins Coie, where he represented the DNC after its servers were hacked. The Obama-era intelligence agencies and the Mueller investigation attributed the hack to Putin’s regime, but the matter is murky. In part, that’s because the DNC would not allow the FBI to examine its servers, and, for some reason, the FBI (where Baker was by then general counsel) did not get the Obama Justice Department to issue a subpoena for them.


Meanwhile, Cooper left the Justice Department in 1996, so he was no longer a top adviser to the deputy attorney general in 1997, when President Clinton appointed Eric Holder to that position. But by the time President Obama appointed Cooper to the bench in 2014, Holder was Obama’s attorney general. As AG, Holder needed a national-security counselor. He chose Amy Jeffress . . . who happens to be married to Judge Cooper.

In private practice, Jeffress recently represented Lisa Page, the former Justice Department and FBI lawyer who was embroiled in both the Clinton-emails and Trump–Russia investigations, and whose overt loathing of Trump was, shall we say, controversial. Page was plugged into the top hierarchy of the FBI under Director James Comey, because she was a special legal adviser to Comey’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe. She also worked closely with James Baker, a top Comey adviser and the Bureau’s general counsel from 2014 through 2017.

(Interestingly, Comey was appointed FBI director by Obama while Holder was AG. Holder’s 2008 nomination to the top job at the DOJ had initially run into some headwinds due to his complicity in President Clinton’s pardons scandal — particularly the pay-for-play pardon of Marc Rich. But the nomination was given a boost when Holder was publicly endorsed by Comey — who, besides having been President Bush’s deputy attorney general, had for a time been the prosecutor assigned to the Marc Rich case while Rich was a fugitive on the FBI’s “most wanted” list.)

In September 2016, the Clinton campaign decided to bring to the FBI its claim that Trump was a Putin plant and was using Alfa Bank, a major Russian financial institution, as a communications back-channel to the Kremlin. Sussmann was chosen to convey to the Bureau the Internet-traffic data that had been carefully mined by Rodney Joffe, a tech executive who allegedly hoped to score a job in what everyone assumed would be the Hillary Clinton administration.

Sussmann decided not to report the information through regular FBI channels. See, ordinary citizens who seek to report potential crimes or security threats contact the FBI and are referred to an agent. But unlike mere mortals, Sussmann is a big-cheese former DOJ cybersecurity official with big-cheese political connections. So he sought, and was granted, a meeting with the Bureau’s top lawyer, Baker — who, in later congressional testimony, conceded that this was indeed a very unusual way for the FBI to receive investigative information, since FBI lawyers are not FBI agents and generally try to stay out of the chain of evidence.

The meeting was one-on-one. Usually, a person with important information to pass along will meet with not one but two FBI agents (again, not FBI lawyers). That way, one agent can take notes while the other agent leads the questioning, and if, down the road, there is ever any dispute about what happened and what was said during the encounter, there are two FBI agents available to testify. Yet, when these two lawyers with longtime government experience in Washington got together to discuss whether the Republican presidential nominee might be a Russian spy, there was no one else in the room.

Baker is thus the only witness to Sussmann’s alleged false statement, which was neither digitally recorded nor transcribed. And Cooper is the judge hearing the case.

This is not John Durham’s first rodeo. He is 71, and has spent his entire professional life as a state and federal prosecutor in Connecticut. Over the decades, he has been asked to handle a number of politically sensitive, special-counsel-type investigations, precisely because he is not a Swamp creature. When the Sussmann trial starts this spring, he will be representing the United States government in a Washington, D.C., courtroom. But for him, this will not be a home game.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, and related matters
« Reply #1334 on: February 20, 2022, 06:06:22 AM »
"The crescendo toward which Durham appears to be building is a final report that will show the Trump–Russia “collusion” innuendo that gripped the country for three years was essentially concocted by Mrs. Clinton and her minions."

was it not within a day or two Clinton was already planting the rumor it was the "Russians". who were responsible for her loss.

clearly then, she was in on it.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, and related matters
« Reply #1335 on: February 20, 2022, 06:11:37 AM »
"Funny you should ask. The case is assigned to Judge Christopher R. “Casey” Cooper, who was appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2014.

Judge Cooper is a protégé of the late Judge Abner J. Mikva, for whom he clerked on the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993. Some of us of a certain age remember Judge Mikva as White House counsel to President Bill Clinton."

"Shysterlisters" is my name for these lawyers
Part of the Clinton mob

"Welcome to the Swamp, Mr. Durham"

reminds me of the lead at Judicial Watch who told me on the phone:

"welcome to Washington DC!"

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
another post
« Reply #1336 on: February 20, 2022, 06:28:32 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15702
    • View Profile
Durham, by Hillary Sycophant
« Reply #1337 on: February 21, 2022, 11:59:51 PM »
"It's time for Durham to shut down his investigation". Analysis by someone who has not read a word of it.

https://newrepublic.com/article/165437/john-durham-trump-special-counsel-sham-investigation

This kind of drivel becomes their talking point and they never have to discuss the substance.  Quite a bit of projecting going on.  In the corrections we learn the author didn't even know how indictments Durham has come out with, yet this will ignorance will be the model for answering the charges.

Oh, and it is a material fact that Sussman lied about who his client was, the Democratic Presidential nominee spying on the Republican nominee, just like has happened how many times ... NEVER ... in our republic's history. 

Watergate was about trying to get the opponent's inside information, and his removal from office had to do with lying about it.  THIS WAS FAR WORSE.

I don't know where this will lead but one thing is clear, Durham didn't make it all up.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14120
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, and related matters
« Reply #1338 on: February 22, 2022, 10:04:39 AM »
".I don't know where this will lead but one thing is clear, Durham didn't make it all up."

lets keep our fingers crossed he does not get discovered at his home hanging from a rafter
in an "apparent suicide".

or like the Russians do it -> get hit by a car in a "random accident".

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22550
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, and related matters
« Reply #1339 on: February 22, 2022, 10:20:46 AM »
".I don't know where this will lead but one thing is clear, Durham didn't make it all up."

lets keep our fingers crossed he does not get discovered at his home hanging from a rafter
in an "apparent suicide".

or like the Russians do it -> get hit by a car in a "random accident".

They don't need to kill him. Nothing of importance will come from this. At most, a few low level people will get sweet plea deals and be taken care of by the system.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile
Durham: 5 Clintonites refusing to cooperate
« Reply #1341 on: April 18, 2022, 02:36:25 PM »
Durham: 5 Witnesses Connected to Clinton Campaign Refusing to Cooperate
By Jack Phillips April 18, 2022 Updated: April 18, 2022biggersmaller Print
Special counsel John Durham revealed that five witnesses who have connections to the Clinton campaign are invoking their Fifth Amendment right and will not cooperate with his investigation, according to a recent court filing.

In a motion filed (pdf) on April 15, Durham revealed that one unnamed individual, “Researcher-2,” was given immunity in exchange for testimony, while “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,” referring to the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

The names of those five individuals were not provided in the filing, although they pertain to former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who is accused by Durham of lying to the FBI in 2016 when he met with the bureau’s then-general counsel, James Baker, and told him that then-candidate Donald Trump had a secret back channel with a Russian bank. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers have said Durman’s investigation is politically motivated.

“Researcher 2” was granted immunity by the government on July 28, 2021, about a month before Sussmann was indicted, according to Durham’s filing.

“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,” the filing said. A spokesperson for Rodney Joffe told news outlets in February that he is “Tech Executive-1” mentioned in Durham’s filings. Joffe was previously in charge of a technology firm known as Neustar.

Earlier this month, Durham, in court filings, sought to compel the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, Democratic election firm Perkins Coie, and others to provide evidence in the Sussmann case. However, they have refused to hand over the documents and said they are protected by attorney-client privilege, according to Durham, who accused those entities of improperly withholding those documents.

Durham further said that of 1,455 documents withheld by Fusion GPS, the firm that was heavily involved in the creation of the controversial and discredited “Steele dossier” on Trump, only 18 emails actually involve an attorney. This means, according to the prosecutor, that attorney-client privilege cannot be applied in the remaining tranche of documents.

Days before that, Durham said Sussmann, Joffe, and Democrats engaged in a “joint venture” to gather and spread claims that Trump had a connection to the Russian government—claims that dominated the early portion of the Trump administration.

“Contrary to the allegations in this recent filing, Mr. Joffe is an apolitical Internet security expert with decades of service to the U.S. Government who has never worked for a political party, and who legally provided access to DNS data obtained from a private client that separately was providing DNS services to the Executive Office of the President (EOP),” a spokesperson for Joffe said earlier this year.

In that early April filing, Durham asserted that Fusion GPS’s work “[does] not appear to have been a necessary part of, or even related to, [Perkins Coie’s] legal advice to [the Clinton campaign] and the DNC.”

“Instead, contemporaneous communications and other evidence make it clear that the primary purpose of [Fusion GPS’s] work related to the [Steele] dossier, the [Russian bank] allegations, and the other issues was to assemble and publicize allegations that would aid the campaign’s public relations goals,” it reads.

Meanwhile, in the same filing that was uploaded Friday, Durham said Sussmann met with a second government agency other than the FBI in February 2017 and handed over alleged evidence claiming to link Trump to Russia. Durham did not name the agency but reports indicated that it was the CIA.

The CIA later concluded that the allegation about the secret channel and a separate allegation about Russian-manufactured phones was not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user-created and not machine/tool generated,” according to Durham’s filing.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59079
    • View Profile
Re: The Russian conspiracy, Comey, Mueller, Durham, and related matters
« Reply #1342 on: April 21, 2022, 08:00:13 AM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/breaking-down-the-flurry-of-legal-filings-by-clinton-campaign-associates-in-durhams-prosecution-of-michael-sussmann_4417313.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-04-21-1&utm_medium=email&est=VuDCVg8eLPXqdCj2yIy1P8zcmHAUaKWSEcfm4um4hN%2FDBZfUpk50KJZOLknK%2Bbka1HiN

Breaking Down the Flurry of Legal Filings by Clinton Campaign Associates in Durham’s Prosecution of Michael Sussmann
By Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke April 20, 2022 Updated: April 21, 2022biggersmaller Print
News analysis

In a coordinated legal action between a number of Hillary Clinton operatives and associates, almost two dozen separate documents were simultaneously filed on April 19 in special counsel John Durham’s case against former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

This sudden flurry of mass filings included responses from former Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook, Clinton campaign lead lawyer Marc Elias, contractors Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign itself, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The trigger for the flurry of filings was a request by Durham to unseal a number of emails involving the parties. The emails are currently being withheld on very questionable grounds of attorney–client privilege. Based on the coordinated filings, it appears that a large number of important people associated with the Clinton campaign are very concerned about the information in those emails becoming public.

Based on available metadata, it appears as if most of the individuals involved in Clinton’s scheme to vilify Trump with claims of Russia collusion were all communicating with each other as that scheme unfolded in real time.

The first person who filed in response to Durham’s request was Rodney Joffe, the tech executive who produced data that purportedly tied Trump to Russia. Joffe had been promised a top government job in case of a Hillary Clinton election victory.

Joffe claimed in his filing that his communications should be treated as privileged because they were part of his attorney-client relationship with Sussmann. Joffe was indeed a client of Sussmann’s starting in 2015. But, in an unexpected and perhaps unintentional comment, Joffe also disclosed that he had hired Sussmann specifically to advise him how to share sensitive information concerning Trump with government agencies—without revealing his identity and thereby exposing himself to potential liability.

In effect, Joffe publicly admitted that he hired Sussmann to take information about Trump to the FBI. The problem for Sussmann is that he’s been charged with lying about exactly that point. Sussmann claimed–in an email to then FBI General Counsel James Baker–that he wasn’t taking the information to the FBI on behalf of any client but instead was merely acting as a good Samaritan.

If Joffe throwing Sussmann under the proverbial bus wasn’t bad enough, the next filing was even worse for Sussmann. It came from Clinton campaign operatives Fusion GPS who also want their emails to be withheld from Durham.

In order to obtain the benefit of attorney–client privilege, Fusion now claims to have assisted Sussmann and his law firm with legal matters.

That claim is demonstrably false as Fusion’s main role—acknowledged by Fusion’s owners Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch in their book—was to conduct opposition research on Trump and seed those stories with the media.

To make matters even worse, Simpson and Fritsch admitted that in writing in their 2019 book “Crime in Progress.” It appears as if Fusion’s lawyers didn’t read their client’s book ahead of their filing. This blunder won’t have gone unnoticed by Durham’s team.

The next filing came from Perkins Coie, the legal firm for which Clinton campaign lawyers Sussmann and Elias worked in 2016. Perkins didn’t want to disclose any of its emails either, but the excuse was a lot simpler. The firm noted that Elias had left the company last year and had taken all of the related files with him.

A separate submission came from Elias himself. Elias, a well-known Democratic Party lawyer, made an argument that essentially mirrored that of Fusion, namely that Fusion was providing Perkins Coie with input that was related to legal advice, and any communications were therefore covered by privilege. Elias failed to address the basic fact that Fusion had been hired to collect and disseminate opposition research to the media. Elias similarly didn’t address that Sussmann himself had disseminated Fusion’s stories to the media, as well as to the FBI, thereby piercing any pretense of attorney–client privilege.

But the most interesting filing came from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook. Like everyone else, Mook’s main objective was to claim that everything that had been done took place within a legal advice relationship. But unlike the others, Mook didn’t actually claim that everything was above board. Instead, he repeatedly asserted that he thought everything was done above board.

In essence, Mook’s filing essentially shifted the blame onto Elias and the other Clinton operatives. Mook’s apparent refusal to confirm that everything was done legally might end up showcasing Mook as the weak link in the Clinton campaign’s efforts to cover up the origins of the Russiagate scandal. This development is something that Durham will no doubt have taken note of.

The overarching problem with all these claims of privilege is that by legal necessity they have to be based on legal advice. If the task at hand wasn’t about legal advice—such as Fusion pushing false stories about Trump to the media—then there is no attorney-client privilege.

With that backdrop in mind, Fusion GPS claimed in its filing that it was retained by then-partner Elias at Perkins Coie to “assist in providing legal advice to its clients, the Hillary for America Campaign Committee and the DNC during the 2016 presidential campaign. As we noted earlier, Elias’s own submission mirrored this claim.

But there’s a huge problem when we compare these new claims with an Oct 24, 2017 letter from Perkins Coie, which officially detailed its retention and hiring of Fusion on April 11, 2016.

Matthew Gerringer, general counsel for Perkins Coie, noted that Fusion approached Perkins Coie in early March 2016. Gerringer stated that Fusion expressed an interest in its continuation of “research regarding then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump,” research that “Fusion GPS had conducted for one or more other clients during the Republican primary contest.”

And it wasn’t just Perkins Coie that was saying this. In their 2019 book, Fusion’s owners told a very similar story, specifically that they had pitched the idea to Elias that they would continue to collect opposition research on Trump on Elias’s behalf. There was never any mention from either Fusion or Elias of legal services or legal advice.

Fusion appears to have now twisted the meaning of its engagement, stating that it wasn’t really doing opposition research and media outreach, but instead was focused on privileged investigative work and analysis.

There are several problems with Fusion’s assertion. Dossier author Christopher Steele —who had been hired by Fusion to push Trump Russia collusion stories—told a UK court in May 2017 that he was directed by Fusion GPS to speak with a number of media outlets on several different occasions.

Steele testified that in September 2016 he had personally briefed a large number of journalists at Fusion’s instruction. Those journalists were from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker, and CNN. In October 2016, Steele was instructed once again to speak to the NY Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, and Mother Jones.

Based on Steele’s stories, many of these outlets subsequently published extremely damaging stories about Trump–Russia collusion. None more so than Mother Jones’s David Corn, who not only put out an article discussing the contents of the dossier just ahead of the 2016 election but also shared Steele’s dossier reports with James Baker of the FBI. Notably, Baker was the same person who met with Sussmann in September 2016.

Additionally, there were also multiple communications that took place between the owners of Fusion, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, and various corporate media reporters during this same time frame.

In a flurry of conversations on Oct. 5, 2016, Fusion’s Fritsch reached out to Tom Hamburger of The Washington Post, providing supposed DNS data claiming links between a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Fritsch then provided the same data to Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News. Fritsch also provided NBC’s Matthew Mosk with a ZIP file of data in an email containing the subject line: Dude this is huge.

Just a few weeks later, on Oct. 18, 2016, Fritsch wrote to Reuters’ Mark Hosenball on Oct 18, 2016, telling him “Do the F***ing alfa bank secret comms story. It is hugely important…”

The actions of Fusion at the behest of Elias had nothing to do with legal advice. They did, however, have everything to do with establishing a false narrative, one that had been crafted by these Clinton operatives themselves–which is precisely why they are now panicking about their emails being released to Durham.

But the flurry of filings wasn’t the only major development in the Durham investigation. In a subsequent hearing on Wednesday, a Durham prosecutor told Obama appointee Judge Christopher Cooper that the project to link Trump and Russia through DNS data had actually originated with Joffe. The prosecution stated that Joffe’s plan was carried out through the help of Clinton campaign agents. Durham’s team also revealed that there were meetings between Elias, Sussmann and Joffe during which Joffe was allegedly encouraged to create “imprints” that would tie Trump to Russia through data.

It’s not yet known exactly how Durham’s office came to know about the meeting between Elias, Joffe, and Sussmann, but if such a meeting actually did take place, it would completely destroy any pretense that the relationship between these parties had anything to with providing legal services. This discovery also could land Elias and Joffe in significant legal trouble for lying in their filings to the court.