Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place
Hosted by Showtalk
Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
- 4642
MEMBERS - 104920
MESSAGES - 48
POSTS TODAY
Discussions
What did the Durham Report tell us? The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You
Started Feb-14 by Showtalk; 34406 views.
Staff
From: WALTER784
Apr-28
New info from Durham's report... and it's getting more intriguing...
John Durham’s Latest Filing Drops Hammer on Hillary Clinton: Anti-Trump Story ‘Contained Gaps’
David Hawkins
April 16, 2022
Special Counsel John Durham has just dropped the hammer on Hillary Clinton in another Friday night filing.
This time, the bulldog prosecutor has revealed that investigators have found major “gaps” in the anti-Trump story being pushed by Clinton and her campaign.
Durham says that at least one government agency, “Agency-2,” probably the CIA or NSA, said the Alfa Bank Trump data exchange was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.”
Durham continues to say that neither his office nor the FBI has reached a definitive judgment on whether this data was “fabricated” to hurt President Donald Trump but “Agency 2” concluded it “contained gaps, conflicted with itself,” and did not “withstand technical scrutiny.”
The agency concluded, and Durham put this in writing, that the data behind the anti-Trump hoax was not “technically plausible” and was “user created.”
Durham’s filing says:
At a minimum, however, the Government does expect to adduce evidence at trial reflecting (i) the fact that the FBI and Agency-2 concluded that the Russian Bank-1 allegations were untrue and unsupported and
(ii) the primary bases for these conclusions, including the particular investigative and analytical steps taken by these agencies.
(For example, while the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated, Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not “technically plausible,” did not“withstand technical scrutiny,” “contained gaps,” “conflicted with [itself],” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated.” The Special Counsel’s Office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard.)
This leads to the question: Who would benefit if Trump was smeared with false ties to Russia.
The obvious answer is Hillary Clinton and her campaign.
However, Durham’s filing also says he has witnesses that he can call, meaning he won’t be solely relying on Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to blow the whistle.
Durham’s filing continues:
Nor does the defendant’s attempt to distance himself factually from the origins of the purported data and allegations aid his argument. As an initial matter, the Government has already proffered to the Court and/or expects to offer at trial considerable evidence that the defendant – a former DOJ cyber lawyer who identified himself as an expert in privacy, cybersecurity, and technology law – was involved in and/or aware of the data’s origins.
For example: Days before his meeting with the FBI, the defendant emailed Researcher-2 – the author of one of the relevant white papers and one of the primary researchers who analyzed the Russian Bank-1 allegations – stating that they had a mutual friend, referring to Tech Executive-1.
Also in mid-September 2016, Researcher-2 left a voicemail for the defendant at his office seeking to speak with him.
If called as a witness, Researcher-2 would testify that soon thereafter, he spoke with the defendant and raised concerns about whether the data concerning Trump and Russian Bank-1 was being unlawfully collected and used.
Reflecting sufficient awareness of the data’s origins to opine on the issue, the defendant assured Researcher-2 that the data had, in fact, been lawfully collected and used.
Researcher-2 would testify, in particular, that the defendant stated that the data was collected under contracts for what is described as “passive DNS” collection, and that the use of the data complied with principles of “informed consent.”
Researcher-2 would further testify that he understood the defendant to be familiar with the
...[Message truncated]
Staff
From: WALTER784
Apr-28
John Durham Springs His Trap After ‘Hillary for America’ Walks Right Into It
April 26, 2022
Red State: Last Tuesday, RedState reported on two desperate filings put forth by Hillary for America and Fusion GPS. They attempted to assert attorney-client privilege over materials that John Durham’s prosecution of Michael Sussmann is seeking to get its hands on.
That left the obvious question open, though. How could Sussmann both simultaneously assert that he was acting on his own accord and not being paid by the Hillary campaign while at the same time having Hillary for America and Fusion GPS assert attorney-client privilege over their communications?
Here’s what I wrote at the time.
Besides, isn’t this an admission that Sussmann was being paid by the Clinton campaign (via proxies)? If the information between Fusion GPS, Hillary for America, and Perkins Coie (Sussmann’s employer) is supposedly covered under attorney-client privilege, that would logically mean Sussmann was lying when he said he wasn’t working for any client at the time. Obviously, making that case in court is a fair bit more difficult than typing it out here, but still, it’s illuminating.
To further complicate matters, Hillary for America entered into an agreement with the FEC to settle violations that expresses the opposite viewpoint they are now trying to argue before the judge in the Sussmann case. The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland explains in her write-up about a letter sent to Durham that pointed out that conflict.
In Friday’s letter, Backer also highlighted Hillary for America and the DNC’s commitment in their settlement agreement with the FEC to “not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe” that the political organizations had “falsely reported their payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS as being for legal services.” In contrast, in the Sussmann case, Hillary for America and the DNC “are nevertheless asserting materials generated by Fusion GPS and provided to Perkins Coie are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine,” the letter stressed.
“The Government should not permit HFA and the DNC to adopt conflicting positions in different proceedings, depending on the federal agency against which they are litigating,” the foundation’s letter concluded, suggesting the trial court may find those breaches of the settlement agreement “material in ruling on any privilege claims.”
Do you see the issue? In one case, Hillary for America is saying: “Oh, Sussmann was just giving us legal services.” In another case, on the exact same payments, they are admitting: “Oh, Sussmann was not actually being paid for legal services.” You would think the judge overseeing Durham’s prosecution wouldn’t find that tactic very cute.
John Durham Springs His Trap After ‘Hillary for America’ Walks Right Into It – IOTW Report
FWIW
Staff
From: WALTER784
Apr-29
Well, she basically entrapped herself with her double stance.
And I do believe that Durham will get his hands on the information that they claim client-attorney privilege... because it's just another lie/ruse to attempt to cover up what actually happened!!!
FWIW
Staff
From: WALTER784
Apr-29
Well, he's 72 years old and would probably like to retire soon.
Having Hillary's name up on his wall of victories would be the prize of all prizes. The guy who finally took Hillary down!
I think he has her on 12 different ways to Sunday such that there is no way that she can squiggle out of.
I heard the court date is expected to be around August 2022, so we'll have to wait and see.
FWIW
- Edited May 17, 2022 8:59 pm by WALTER784
Staff
From: WALTER784
Apr-30
LOL... and Congress has too many octogenarians...
Edited to add: In both parties...
FWIW
- Edited April 30, 2022 9:43 pm by WALTER784
Staff
From: WALTER784
May-1
Here is a new twist to Durham's interim report...
Former DNI John Ratcliffe: Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax a “Conspiracy” – Entire Perkins Coie Law Firm “Could Be Subject to Indictment” (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft
Published April 24, 2022 at 11:01am
Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe joined Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures this morning.
The former DNI, who has been outspoken in his quest to report the truth on the Trump-Russia collusion hoax gave an update on the John Durham investigation into the lies and set-up of Donald Trump during the 2016 election and then for several years into his administration. According to John Ratcliffe we are now looking at a conspiracy. And the former DNI said hiding Hunter’s laptop story was a coordinated attempt to mislead the American people.
John Ratcliffe: This was a coordinated effort to mislead the American people… Adam Schiff claiming that this was Russian disinformation and then having it peddled by Big Tech and former national security officials who all signed on in the weeks leading up to 2020, influenced the outcome of the election and I think they were successful in doing so.
John Ratliffe then added that the entire Law Firm Perkins Coie could be subject to indictment.
John Ratcliffe: This was a coordinated effort by Hillary Clinton Campaign officials, by executives who were working with them, lawyers who work for the campaign, all attempting to defraud the federal government… Defrauding the government is a felony, making false statements to federal investigators is a felony. And when multiple people do it together I think that is a conspiracy and I think that’s what is being revealed in John Durham’s filings… If multiple lawyers from a law firm are attempting to defraud the government or lie to the government, not just commit a campaign dirty trick but to peddle a false narrative to mislead investigators an entire law firm like Perkins Coie could be subject to indictment.
FWIW
Host
From: Showtalk
May-1
Yes, once they hit their 80s if they are showing any cognitive decline, it’s time to let a new group take over.
TOP