POLITICS -  It's Going To Blow Up On Mueller (9953 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconMar-8 1:25 AM 
To: All  (601 of 613) 
 9333.601 in reply to 9333.600 

March 8, 2022

        "Given the temporal proximity to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the FBI also might have taken any number of different steps in initiating, delaying, or declining the initiation of this matter had it known at the time that the defendant was providing information on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive at a private company,"

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-filing-raises-prospect-history-might-have-changed

Durham filing raises prospect history might have changed if Clinton lawyer hadn't lied

Prosecutor suggests FBI might not have proceeded with key part of Russia probe if Michael Sussmann had told the truth.

It was an allegation that dogged Donald Trump for three years: a claim the Republican nominee-turned-president had a secret backdoor communications channel with the Kremlin. Repeated endlessly by the liberal media, the allegation was never true. Now, Special Counsel John Durham is raising the tantalizing specter the FBI might never have investigated the claim during the height of the 2016 presidential election if the man who brought it to the bureau — Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann — had told the truth about its origins.

In his latest court filing this weekend, Durham gave his most sweeping assessment yet about the consequences of Sussmann hiding the fact that he brought the allegation to the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a computer executive aligned with the campaign. "Had the defendant truthfully informed the FBI General Counsel that he was providing the information on behalf of one or more clients, as opposed to merely acting as a 'good citizen,' the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel might have asked a multitude of additional questions material to the case initiation process," Durham told the court in a memo filed late Friday.

"Given the temporal proximity to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the FBI also might have taken any number of different steps in initiating, delaying, or declining the initiation of this matter had it known at the time that the defendant was providing information on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive at a private company," he added.

Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI by claiming he was not working on behalf of any clients when he fed then-FBI General Counsel James Baker allegations the GOP nominee had a secret computer channel to the Kremlin. Sussmann recently asked the judge in his case to dismiss a charge of lying to the FBI, arguing his alleged false statement to the FBI was not material to the case and was protected by the First Amendment.

Durham responded Friday with a sweeping rebuke of Sussmann's conduct, taking aim at his defense that his alleged lies were constitutionally protected speech. "Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant — a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer — chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI's chief legal officer at the height of an election season," Durham wrote the judge.

"He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations," he added. "Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect. The Court should therefore reject defendant's invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct."

Durham also revealed that he plans to deliver testimony at trial from several FBI and government witnesses that Sussmann's false statement was material and relevant and could have influenced the course of the Russia collusion case.

 
 Reply   Options 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconMar-9 1:22 AM 
To: All  (602 of 613) 
 9333.602 in reply to 9333.601 

March 9, 2022

          "as former DNI John Ratcliffe explained, from the intel that he has seen and discussed with Durham, he expected “quite a few more indictments.”

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/03/05/durham-rips-apart-the-sussmann-motion-to-dismiss-and-lays-out-the-clinton-connection-n532106

Durham Rips Apart the Sussmann Motion to Dismiss and Lays out the Clinton Connection

~~~~~~~ After the news came out, the attorneys for Michael Sussmann moved to strike the factual background in the Durham filing that has raised all the furor, claiming essentially that Special Counsel John Durham said too much, and that the intent was “to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.” ~~~~~~~

Now the Durham response to the motion to dismiss has been filed. The false statement that Sussmann is charged with making was that when he assembled all this information and conveyed it to the FBI, he allegedly falsely said he was not providing the information to the FBI on behalf of any clients, when he was doing it on behalf of Tech Exec-1 and the Clinton campaign, according to Durham. The defense claimed the alleged lie told by Sussmann to the FBI wasn’t “material” as required under the charge. ~~~~~~~

The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign. The defendant’s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBI’s decision-making in any number of ways. [….]

And the evidence will show that it would have been all the more material here because the defendant was providing this information on behalf of the Clinton Campaign less than two months prior to a hotly contested U.S. presidential election.

Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant – a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer – chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season. He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect. ~~~~~~~

I’m thinking the folks in Clinton-land aren’t going to like what’s coming next because this shouldn’t get dismissed. Plus, as former DNI John Ratcliffe explained, from the intel that he has seen and discussed with Durham, he expected “quite a few more indictments.” He also alleged that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden had been advised about the plan, and “everything that happened after that...is one of the reasons that John Durham is investigating.”

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconMar-10 7:59 AM 
To: All  (603 of 613) 
 9333.603 in reply to 9333.602 

March 10, 2022

        "Halper was not who he said he was. He was, indeed, a spy, but his handler was not the Kremlin – it was the FBI. Armed with leading questions and on at least two occasions a hidden tape recorder, Halper had been tasked by the bureau with finding dirt on the Trump campaign."

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/03/08/the_curious_case_of_stefan_halper_longtime_zelig_of_american_scandals_who_crossfired_trump_818108.html

The Curious Case of Stefan Halper, Longtime 'Zelig' of American Scandals Who 'Crossfired' Trump

In the late summer of 2016 Stefan A. Halper met with at least three of Donald Trump’s associates in England and the United States, bragging about his friendship with Russian spies who “can be very helpful to us at this time.”

As they listened to his tales of foreign intrigue and promises of illegal foreign help, what George Papadopoulos, Carter Page and Sam Clovis did not know was that Halper was not who he said he was. He was, indeed, a spy, but his handler was not the Kremlin – it was the FBI. Armed with leading questions and on at least two occasions a hidden tape recorder, Halper had been tasked by the bureau with finding dirt on the Trump campaign.

Halper’s undercover operation, which was documented in a report by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, would prove largely a bust. Transcripts between Halper and Trump campaign officials would show that none of them took the bait, or appeared to otherwise be soliciting Russia’s help in the 2016 presidential campaign

Even now, it might seem odd that the FBI made Halper, then a septuagenarian Cambridge University professor, a linchpin of its top-secret counterintelligence probe codenamed "Crossfire Hurricane." But a closer look at Halper’s life and work makes that decision seem inevitable. Stefan Halper is the Zelig of modern American political scandal – a chameleon-like, unusually ubiquitous figure who keeps appearing when mischief is afoot. ~~~~~~~

Given the secret nature of his work, it is not surprising that Halper’s exact role in these scandals is still debated by insiders and historians. An examination of long-ignored records by RealClearInvestigations, however, shows that Halper has added to the mystery by appearing to consistently misrepresent his background and experience on resumes. There is, for example, no public evidence for his claim, on a resume he submitted to the Ford White House, that he was class president at Stanford University in 1967, or a Fulbright scholar. Nor is there any for the claim on another resume that he held the prestigious position in the Ford administration listed. 

 

Message 604 of 613 was Deleted  

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconMar-23 4:38 AM 
To: All  (605 of 613) 
 9333.605 in reply to 9333.604 

March 22, 2022

         "Antonakakis would later tell Joffe, Lorenzen, and Researcher 2, who was his Georgia Tech colleague David Dagon, that they needed to regroup because their dislike for Trump was giving them “tunnel vision” and their theory would not withstand public scrutiny."

Researcher Says He Saw Holes In Alfa Bank Hoax Beforehand

A Georgia Tech researcher says he tried to politely throw cold water on a key part of the Russia collusion hoax before the Alfa Bank lie was eventually shopped to the media and government agencies, according to a newly obtained document. ~~~~~~~ 

As I explained previously, “that indictment alleged that when Sussmann met with Baker on September 19, 2016, to provide the FBI attorney with data and ‘white papers’ that purported to establish a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and the Russia-connected Alfa Bank, Sussmann falsely claimed he was not acting on behalf of a client, when in reality Sussmann was working both for the Clinton campaign and an unnamed ‘U.S. technology industry executive’ since confirmed to be Rodney Joffe.” ~~~~~~~ 

Antonakakis would later tell Joffe, Lorenzen, and Researcher 2, who was his Georgia Tech colleague David Dagon, that they needed to regroup because their dislike for Trump was giving them “tunnel vision” and their theory would not withstand public scrutiny. ~~~~~~~

The special counsel’s office made no similar allegations about Antonakakis. So why doesn’t Antonakakis go public with his expert analysis that the Alfa Bank-Trump research was “not great”? Why not “poke holes” in the white paper, as he said a DNS expert could easily do?

Is it a misplaced loyalty to his colleagues and a fear that frankness will create more problems for Joffe, Dagon, and Lorenzen? Or is his attorney, who previously represented Christopher Steele’s Primary Sub-Source, Igor Danchenko, driving the “Alfa Bank-Trump theory remains plausible” strategy?

No matter the answer, we know the Alfa Bank paper was bunk, and the foremost expert in DNS analysis knows it too.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconMar-25 9:14 AM 
To: All  (606 of 613) 
 9333.606 in reply to 9333.605 

March 25, 2022

        "Perkins Coie is now a central target of Durham’s ongoing investigation. Former Perkins lawyer Michael Sussmann faces felony charges related to his work digging up anti-Trump dirt for the Clinton campaign in 2016."

Election Overseer Found DNC, Chalupa Broke Rules Over Ukraine, Then Reversed Its Findings After January 6

Election Overseer Found DNC, Chalupa Broke Rules Over Ukraine, Then Reversed Its Findings After January 6

Though ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was never charged with conspiring with Russia, he did go to jail for, among other things, failing to register as a foreign agent for Ukraine. The Democratic National Committee operative who helped get him booted from the campaign should be investigated for the same violation, Republican Senators say. Former DNC contractor and opposition researcher Alexandra “Ali” Chalupa not only worked closely with the Ukrainian Embassy and Clinton campaign, trading dirt on Manafort and Trump, but also Congress and the Obama White House, State Department and even the FBI. “At the center of the [Ukraine foreign influence] plan was Alexandra Chalupa,” GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee has asserted.

“Chalupa’s actions appear to show she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence not only the U.S. voting population but U.S. government officials,” Grassley said in a July 2017 letter to then-deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. ~~~~~~~ Chalupa is an important figure in the anti-Trump conspiracy plot Special Counsel John Durham is investigating, according to sources familiar with his probe. Though she is a material witness in his inquiry, it is not immediately known if she has been interviewed by his investigators. Questions sent to her attorney went unanswered. ~~~~~~~

In a little-noticed 2019 letter to Chalupa, the FEC stated that its attorneys “found reason to believe that you violated [the Federal Election Campaign Act] by soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions from foreign nationals,” noting that “the Ukrainian Embassy made in-kind contributions to the DNC by performing opposition research on the Trump campaign at no charge to the DNC.” ~~~~~~~

Perkins Coie is now a central target of Durham’s ongoing investigation. Former Perkins lawyer Michael Sussmann faces felony charges related to his work digging up anti-Trump dirt for the Clinton campaign in 2016. And Durham recently brought his former partner Elias before his grand jury to testify under subpoena. Durham also has obtained thousands of pages of subpoenaed documents from Perkins.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconMar-28 10:57 AM 
To: All  (607 of 613) 
 9333.607 in reply to 9333.606 

March 28, 2022

         "Political appointees and the leaders of the FBI and DOJ purposefully manipulated the truth," he said. "The people in the middle management. I've talked to them. I've talked to FBI agents, they knew that this was a phony exercise."

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/former-intel-chief-sure-fbi-committed-crimes

Former intel chief: FBI 'for sure' committed crimes investigating Trump-Russia collusion

Former acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, who began the declassification of documents that unraveled the discredited Russia collusion narrative, tells Just the News he is certain from evidence he saw that the FBI committed crimes while investigating former President Donald Trump. ~~~~~~~

"Political appointees and the leaders of the FBI and DOJ purposefully manipulated the truth," he said. "The people in the middle management. I've talked to them. I've talked to FBI agents, they knew that this was a phony exercise. ~~~~~~~

After three years of investigation, Special Prosecutor John Durham has secured a single conviction, against Kevin Clinesmith on a charge the former FBI lawyer doctored evidence to submit to the courts. Durham has also indicted former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann and former Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko on charges of lying to the FBI probe. Both have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting trial. 

"Do you have any doubt there are more crimes to be prosecuted by Durham?" Grenell was asked Tuesday. 

"Yeah, I have no doubt," he answered.

Asked further whether he saw evidence that the FBI violated laws during the probe, he added: "For sure."

Grenell said the FBI's misconduct, first revealed by a Justice Department inspector general report in 2019, must be viewed in the context of a much larger, troubling trend of government and media institutions betraying Americans' trust. ~~~~~~~

Grenell's comments closely track those of his successor as DNI, John Ratcliffe, who told Fox News that he delivered more than 1,000 documents to Durham and was confident more prosecutions are forthcoming.

"I would expect there to be quite a few more indictments because of that," Ratcliffe said last month. "There was not a proper predicate to begin that investigation. John Durham has said that publicly already." 

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconApr-5 5:50 AM 
To: All  (608 of 613) 
 9333.608 in reply to 9333.607 

April 5, 2022

        "Earlier this week President Trump filed a federal RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the DNC and several Democrats over the Russia collusion canard."

Democrat Lawyers Object to Durham Asking Potential Jurors if They Have Links to Hillary Clinton's Promotion of Russian Collusion Hoax

Recall, Hillary Clinton hatched the Trump-Russia plot in 2016 to distract from her emails transmitted over a private server while she was the head of the Department of State. John Durham wants to know about any links to Hillary Clinton’s promotion of the Russian collusion canard in a questionnaire to potential jurors. Attorneys for Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann however are objecting to the question.

The Washington Examiner reportedThe legal team for indicted Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann doesn’t like special counsel John Durham’s proposal to ask potential jurors in an upcoming trial if they have any links to groups that looked into what he describes as the Hillary Clinton campaign’s promotion of “the Trump/Russia collusion narrative.”

A filing in federal court Friday said both Durham’s team and Sussmann’s lawyers were in agreement about a questionnaire asking potential jurors if “you, any family member, or close personal friend participated or had any connection with any other government agency, group, organization, committee or subcommittee, public or private group or organization, including any media group or organization that has investigated or made inquiry into” either “Russian interference with the 2016 election” or “the federal government’s investigation of Donald Trump’s relationship with Russia.”

But Sussmann’s team said it objected to the Durham prosecution request to ask the jury pool the same question related to any links to groups that have looked at or been tied to “the Clinton Campaign and/or the Democratic National Committee’s promotion of the Trump/Russia collusion narrative.”

Earlier this week President Trump filed a federal RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the DNC and several Democrats over the Russia collusion canard. “In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot — one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy,” Trump’s lawyers argued. “Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.”

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconApr-8 4:23 AM 
To: All  (609 of 613) 
 9333.609 in reply to 9333.608 

February 8, 2022

Can Trump Win His Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton For Collusion Lies?

Last week, former President Donald Trump filed a sprawling lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and the other main players responsible for the Russia collusion hoax. ~~~~~~~ The 103-page complaint filed in a Florida federal court begins with a synopsis of the Democratic plot to frame Trump as a Russian asset, spurring the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into his presidential campaign and later his administration. Among other things, the lawsuit highlights the Clinton campaign’s hiring of Perkins Coie, alleging the law firm “was tasked with spearheading the scheme to find — or fabricate — proof of a sinister link between Donald J. Trump and Russia.” ~~~~~~~ 

Simultaneously, Joffe and others exploited “their access to non-public data in search of a secret ‘back channel’ connection between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank,” the complaint alleged, but, according to the complaint, after discovering “no such channel existed, the defendants resorted to truly subversive measures hacking servers at Trump Tower, Trump’s private apartment, and, most alarmingly, the White House.” “This ill-gotten data was then manipulated to create a misleading ‘inference’” of Russia collusion,” the complaint charged. That data was then provided to the FBI and CIA, as well as peddled to the media.

In turn, the complaint continued, what Trump called a “small faction of Clinton loyalists” in the Department of Justice and FBI, including James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr, allegedly abused their authority by, among other things, obtaining the illegal FISA warrant to spy on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page and to trigger the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Together, these schemes caused Trump to incur upward of $24 million to defend against the false charges Clinton and her cronies concocted, the lawsuit alleged as damages.

This summary represents a fraction of the details included in the complaint — and an even smaller sliver of the totality of the facts of SpyGate — but it sets the stage sufficiently to understand the theories Trump’s legal team present: Trump’s lawyers allege a total of 16 separate counts, ranging from RICO claims to state law tort claims.

 

 
From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member IconApr-15 5:52 AM 
To: All  (610 of 613) 
 9333.610 in reply to 9333.609 

April 15, 2022

          "The FBI’s glaring lack of curiosity concerning the source of the Alfa Bank “intel” mirrors in many respects how the agents assigned to investigate Trump approached the Steele dossier. With Christopher Steele’s supposed intel, the Crossfire Hurricane team undertook some steps to identify Steele’s sources and to verify the information contained in the memoranda. Yet before they were able to do either, the Department of Justice submitted a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to the FISA court and obtained a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page."

The Alfa Bank Hoax Is Looking A Lot Like Crossfire Hurricane

A lawyer for former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann revealed last week that federal agents never asked Sussmann the origin of the data he provided the FBI related to the Alfa Bank hoax. Beyond highlighting the hackery of the Crossfire Hurricane team, this revelation raises broader concerns about the cozy relationship between the government and private cybersecurity experts. ~~~~~~~ Not once will the evidence show, Bosworth argued, that “anyone at the FBI ever asked Mr. Sussmann, ‘Hey, by the way, where did this information come from?’ No one asked. Not once. Ever.” Sussmann’s attorney continued: “Regardless of who his clients were, if the source of his information was so critical to the government’s investigation, if it mattered so much, you’d think at some point someone would have said, ‘Hey, buddy, you provide this tip to the government. Where did this stuff come from? Who gave it to you? Where did—how did they get it?”

Bosworth’s argument came in response to prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis’s assertion that the special counsel’s office would “put on the stand at trial witnesses who will say that, when you’re analyzing data, you don’t simply close your eyes to where the data came from and compare it to other data or look for corroboration through other sources. The first thing any responsible forensic analysis will ask is ‘Where was the data from?’”

Picking up on Bosworth’s argument, the court interrupted DeFilippis, asking: “If that’s the first thing a responsible investigator would ask, then why would it matter whether Mr. Sussmann was there on behalf of a client or not? Wouldn’t the natural question have been, ‘Where did this stuff come from?’”

DeFilippis responded that because the former FBI general counsel wrongly believed Sussmann had come forward “as a good citizen,” that lulled Baker into accepting the data and white papers without question. Sussmann’s attorney called that argument “nonsensical,” saying that, “if, as the special counsel claims, the first question that investigators would ask is where did the data come from, that’s the question that’s paramount.” ~~~~~~~

The Tips of Many Icebergs - The FBI’s glaring lack of curiosity concerning the source of the Alfa Bank “intel” mirrors in many respects how the agents assigned to investigate Trump approached the Steele dossier. With Christopher Steele’s supposed intel, the Crossfire Hurricane team undertook some steps to identify Steele’s sources and to verify the information contained in the memoranda. Yet before they were able to do either, the Department of Justice submitted a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to the FISA court and obtained a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. ~~~~~~~ There’s a Whole Lot of This Going On...

 

Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 ... 581-590 591-600 601-610 611-613
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.