I’m on the road the next few days (wedding season) and will be providing updates on the Sussmann trial that have more transcripts and less discussion from your humble author.
So in other words, they all concocted this to use against Trump and Sussman is going to be the only person who gets pinned. Then Joe will pardon him and the DNC will employ him as a "consultant "moving forward, for tons of money, since he will lose his law license taking a fall for Clinton, the FBI, CIA and Obama administration.
I disagree. The Durham Team is using the Sussmann trial to lay the framework to expose the "Criminal Conspiracy".
The Durham Team is doing it by introducing evidence in the Sussmann trial: introducing dozens and dozens of documents, Perkins Coie billing notes, calendar notes, emails, handwritten notes. This comes out clearly if you read carefully the transcripts of Marc Elias (Perkins Coie), James Baker (FBI General Counsel), Deborah Fine (HRC campaign Deputy General Counsel).
Jake Sullivan is mentioned many times during the examination of Marc Elias.
The Sussmann trial is not just about convicting Sussmann (who is already toast, by the way, just reading the James Baker testimony and the notes by Bill Priestap and Trisha Anderson): The Sussmann trial is the way for the Durham Team to introduce dozens of evidence pieces, that I mentioned above, to prove the "Criminal Conspiracy".
Igor Danchenko’s trial will illuminate that the bulk of the Steele dossier was bar talk, fabrication and void of credibility, strictly a smear piece spawned of fantasy and imagination.
Joffe’s trial will further emphasize that that Alfa Bank connections were innocent DNS traffic reconfigured to look like something improper.
There are many players whose fingerprints are on this scam and Durham has lifted their prints; it remains to be seen if he will proceed unfettered.
If they all get trials where the judge and jury are as stacked as they seem to be here, and Durham gets those scalps, we’ll probably need to add him as #5 on Mt Rushmore.
None of the four warrants had an actual predicate. The Steele hoax report was just the initial made up story used to get an illicit FISA warrant against an American hero in Carter Page.
not Papadopoulos directly; he was the tie to Trump, all he did was repeat what Misfud had told him to Downer (that Downer somehow already knew when he met him) at the bar, then Downer waited until July and went direct to the US Embassy, at a convenient time when the Ambassador was out and Dibble was the point... she then sent it to the FBI thru the LEGAT... FBI dispatched Strzok and SSA-1 (cannot recall his name) where they were told their information was false by Downer. There was no known Russia connection, only the information that Russia had "material" on HRC in the form of emails. Not enough to start an investigation using DOJ/FBI rules. The FBI then used analytics (who could it be if not Papadopoulos?) open the other 3 investigations (Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn). Horowitz Footnote 179
"Case Agent 2's written summary also states that Case Agent 2 informed Steele that Papadopoulos's actions had resulted in a "small analytical effort" that had expanded to include Manafort, Flynn, and Carter Page. – Horowitz Page 109 / Briefing to Steele in Europe"
you are correct... I should have said Strzok was involved:
"According to Priestap, he authorized opening the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, based upon these discussions. He told us that the FFG information was provided by a trusted source-the FFG- and he therefore felt it "wise to open an investigation to look into" whether someone associated with the Trump campaign may have accepted the reported offer from the Russians. Priestap also told us that the combination of the FFG information and the FBI's ongoing cyber intrusion investigation of the DNC hacks created a counterintelligence concern that the FBI was "obligated" to investigate. Priestap said that he did not recall any disagreement about the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane, and told us that he was not pressured to open the case. As detailed in Chapter Two, the DIOG provides for two types of predicated investigations, Preliminary Investigations and Full Investigations. A Preliminary Investigation may be opened based upon "any allegation or information" indicative of possible criminal activity or threats to the national security; a Full Investigation may be opened based upon an "articulable factual basis" of possible criminal activity or threats to the national security. In cases opened as Preliminary Investigations, all lawful investigative methods (including CHS and UCE operations) may be used except for mail opening, physical searches requiring a search warrant, electronic surveillance requiring a judicial order or warrant (Title III wiretap or a FISA order), or requests under Title VII of FISA. A Preliminary Investigation may be converted to a Full Investigation if the available information provides predication for a Full Investigation.
- Horowitz report page 53
As to the Hillsdale reference; he was knowledgeable and in a position to stop any and all of this from the start. He did not get the details of the FFG source information or the debrief. He did none of that. Instead he let them go off the reservation. Hillsdale or no.
I agree that there have to be bigger fish to justify the resources used to get this far. We can't know Durham's strategy because he's keep a solid lid. Maybe I'm just dreaming but I still see Durham as a warrior for truth.
Yes, this certainly seems to be a slam dunk. I can only hope this is but framework for some severe crimes, up the ladder, and so on.
I question prosecutors being so receptive to the jurors of HFA support! Sure, they admitted their roles ie, phone banking & donating, but the bias is there. Sadly DC does not seem to be the place for a criminal trial if justice is sought. It's only going to get more difficult. Hopefully a change of venue will occur as things heat up.
This is what it seems to be. This is how you build important criminal conspiracy cases (see Rudy Giuliani vs the 5 Mafia families of NYC).
The evidence introduced so far by the Durham Team is overkill to convict just Sussmann.
I agree about the change of venue: Wash DC is 93% Democrat, 5% Republican, so any jury you assemble in DC is going to be leftist biased. Same for judges.
If Sussman is found guilty, Kash Patel stated there will be 3 months before his sentencing and a huge number of those facing federal prison offer to make a deal for a reduced sentence. Who do you think Sussman might give up that Durham might want?
You have already been proven wrong. It would make no sense for Durham to have gone this far just to ignore what he has already presented. He would virtually have to declare everything he has done as "wrong". I don't think for a second he wants to end his long career with a large pie in the face that would destroy any good he has ever done.
he only went this far because susman didn't take a plea because he is clearly very arrogant. I have not been "proven wrong" - Durham has NOT gone after anyone high level, nor will he ever go after anyone high level. You must be a troll because your replies are so stupid it's as if you were intentionally ignoring what is said and just keep going with your dumb narrative. Or maybe you are just too dumb to understand what is being said. Won't be replying to any of these anymore.
Gulag Inmate, You have offered nothing to prove anything you say is right.
Except that you have now shown your hand. Trolls & leftists use such phrases as "your replies are so stupid" "your dumb narrative" "you are just too dumb to understand." I won't ask why you use such statements as the answer is obvious.
Why are you on this site?
Never mind, you have already given the answer by your words and actions.
My opinion is the same as Techno Fog and Patriot 19 and many other who are here to learn; that Durham is doing a very good job. Perhaps one day you will want to learn as well.
This trial isn't really relevant as noted. I hope this starts a domino chain, but we shall see. Durham knows much more now. Maybe he will save it for his book.
Perhaps you might not want to question Durham's Integrity. He has never had a leak and usually gets what he goes after. Book deals are the D's way of laundering money with huge upfront advances with few book sales to follow.
Durham is a man of Integrity and we are fortunate to have him in place. Thank Jeff Sessions for that.
They only leak what is convenient to them. It may not have been convenient so they didn't leak. It's not a measure of integrity. In fact maybe the opposite. Maybe if he was a man of integrity, he would leak that hillary was definitely directing this and it was all a scam - I mean Comey was held up as the pinnacle of integrity for doing almost the same (lying to advance the left's objective). So unless we are willing to play by the same rules, we'll never win. And Durham is just another swamp creature - he is going to make damn sure no one in the establishment gets hurt by any of this = no leaks.
Don't classify someone whom you know nothing about.
When you are investigating someone to take before a Grand Jury a good prosecutor does not leak anything. He wants to make sure his case is airtight.
Good prosecutors don't attempt to try the accused on the court of public opinion which you seem to think is the new rule of law. It's not!
And don't compare Durham to Comey. Perhaps you better look up the words 'integrity' and 'justice.' Comey didn't know the meaning of these (and I don;t know a single person who thought him to be the pinnacle of integrity...LOL) and you don't have a clue as to the value of these values.
There is no need to respond to my comment. I already know who you are. The fact that you say "Comey was held up as the pinnacle of integrity" tells us which side you are on.
Q said "The FIRST INDICTMENT [unseal] will trigger mass pop awakening.
First arrest will verify action and confirm future direction.
They will fight but you are ready.
Marker [9].
Q"
It is most definitely pointing to the HRC and Durham has laid out the path to more exposure of the evidence. The Igor Danchenko trial is next and possibly more incriminating evidence pointing to HRC and possibly Obama.
Q has proven right about so many things already that I have no reason to doubt him on this.
There is a plan. This is part of the plan. Keep your eyes open and watch for the path to get wider & wider.
As Hillary would say, this is a nothing burger. Sussman will be the martyr for the cause to muddy Trump with Russian BS. The rest of the corrupt stooges will remain in the swamp to continue their agendas. While I "hope" accountability returns and lady liberty brings justice to all, I have a feeling that a couple of low level people will only be punished.
Nothing about the corrupt Mueller sham investigation, nothing about corrupt Comey, Strzok, etc. etc. They will walk away from DC richer and having served their purpose with barely a slap on the hand.
Perhaps "patience" is the answer to your negativity, which helps NOTHING. Durham has made VERY CLEAR that other indictments are coming. NO ONE on the list is truly "low level". Some morons even believe Sussman is "low level"; he certainly is NOT.
Jury finds Sussman NOT GUILTY... The DC Swamp protects its own. As Hillary would say, this was a nothing burger. Not gloating here, just so aware of how things truly are corrupt in DC. Our side is in trouble and pinning hopes on 1 person is not the right approach.
Did you know of Sussman prior to Durhams filing? I bet you knew of Perkins Coie and Marc Elias. Sussman is hardly some big time operative of the Democratic corrupt machine and was unknown while others were the heavy hitters (Elias, Podesta 1 & 2, etc.).
The FBI has a mantra that corruption starts at the top and trickles down. Yet with Sussman we are clearly NOT at the top. Listen I pray that Durham brings lady justice to DC and cleans house as its LONG over due. However, I've stopped with the "hope-ism" as for every 1 step forward towards cleaning house, we have nothing burgers EVERYWHERE. Just in the last month, leaked SCOTUS abortion paper (can't find the offender), Penn Election shenanigans (GOP candidate miraculously comes from behind to beat Oz), 40 bln to Ukraine but we can help our small business/restaurants the same week with a 48 bln package. The point the WHOLE system is setup to take care of itself and continue into perpetuity. One man is not going to change things. While I pray and hope Durham is the catalyst to bring about changing the corruption in DC, there are too many other instances that just get swept under the rug.
If "The FBI has a mantra that corruption starts at the top and trickles down" does it not make sense to you that they would want to catch those at the top?
How is that done? Do they arrest people at the top and hope for a bit of miracle evidence to appear or do they start with those supporting & reporting to those at the top? Perhaps you would feel easier and a bit more patient if you looked at the logic of Durham's presentation and order of evidence as well as the evidence itself.
Many of the jurors have likely never heard any of this evidence or HRC supporters may have heard and swallowed the propaganda but have never had an opportunity to see the evidence. This corrupt scheme by HRC and her gang is not merely against R's, but against all the 'common people' D's & I's as well.
We fought against royal tyrannical rule in 1776 and now these corrupt people want to re-establish rule over all of us. We all need food, gas, shelter and the freedom to live our own lives. This war is a battle between the tyrants and those patriots who want freedom. Perhaps it's time to wake up and join the side fighting for your freedom & mine.
God, Bless you ! You are so correct. The "royals" against the "commoners.....been this way for centuries. Blessed are we as a nation to have the Constitution, created by geniuses that had experienced the corruption of the crown and got to realize the Rights of God.
"Sussman will be the martyr for the cause to muddy Trump with Russian BS. The rest of the corrupt stooges will remain in the swamp to continue their agendas."
You have to know the truth before you can claim something (that is not) to be the truth.
Perhaps if you open both eyes and ears. Sussman is only charged with lying to the FBI, which has already been proven. So, why has Durham exposed so many different people involved in this treason, if he was corruptly planning to stop with Sussman's most minor crime? That would make no sense AT ALL.
If* there is a conviction, of which I wouldn't hold my breath given the judge and jury and depth of corruption across the political and governmental institutions.
You kinda remind me a little of my grouchy cousin, Ray (lol). But, I love the “free speech” thing so much that it’s totally ok! You be you (but keep it clean:) Hope you have a nice day!
Sounds to me like Baker just threw Sussmann under the bus.? The Rat’s are jumping ship.!! Hopefully this continues.?? TY Technofog for all your hard work. Much appreciated.!!
Baker seems to have thrown everybody under the bus.
Apart from Sussman, if I read it right, he has demolished the predicate for the Mueller Investigation.
If they were all so certain in the fall of 2016 that the Alfabank story was garbage, how can Comey, Brennan, Stroke and McCabe, argue that anything that followed so closely afterwards, Mueller, was not a political witch hunt based on equally spurious garbage.
I can see how Durham might EXPECT this trial to be corrupted by the judge and/or a few jurists, and Sussman even getting away with lying to the FBI, but the Danchenko trial will set the stage for "conspiracy to commit treason" in a court that will be much harder to corrupt.....and I believe there will be more "singing birds" willing to save their own sorry asses.
The nagging question I’ve had all day (Before Mook took the stand.) Why would Durham bother going through all of this if he was just going to pull a Barr.?? It makes zero sense. Something would have leaked or Durham would have simply said, “Sorry folks, nothing to see here.!!” I mean, why even bother unsealing an indictment if you’re going to just serve up a Nothing Bar.? I’m pulling back to the 40,000 foot view on this one. I do believe there’s a lot more coming.? I could be wrong.? I hope Technofog reads this and chimes in. Would love to get his opinion.!!!
As a minimum, Mook now brings Hillary into the equation for further examination. If Durhan does actually follow through with uncovering the cabal, then Hillary becomes center stage. One has to assume the Hillary camp has a mole in the Durhan staff. If things heat up for her, she will put maximum pressure on the "big guy" do end Durham's investigation.
Yeah, that's my sticking point as well. If Durham is just another establishment pig, why all of the effort? He could have easily done a Horowitz and just wrapped it all up years ago with the much anticipated "report" or ignored everything all together.
Crossfire/Alfa Bank = same same. Both bogus investigations and parts of the same insurrection, and delivered NOTHING honest. Durham clearly wanted and succeeded at implicating hillary and several in her "gang" that included fbi agents working for her BEFORE Crossfire.
Baker didn't throw Sussman under the bus, they are protecting the FBI elite. They all knew the data they were working with and how they were going to use it. Now, only Sussman will get blamed for the Russian collusion narrative and how it was handled. The FBI will claim they were tricked, but we all know they knew what they were doing or else they would not have doctored evidence and then been so impossible to obtain evidence from, once people found out agencies and courts were abused to get Trump.
follows that if "we all know they knew .." answers the question of whether their ruse to throw Sussman under the bus is gonna work, if we knew surely Durham knows more ... waiting to see Durham's next move ...
Thank you, TechnoFog for keeping us updated! I think at this point Michael Sussmann is screwed.
With the testimony of James Baker, and Sussmann billing the meeting to the Hillary Clinton Campaign - as proven by the Durham Team during the examination of Marc Elias - Sussmann DID LIE to the FBI - exactly as Brittain Shaw claimed in her excellent opening argument on Day 2 of the trial.
What do you think?
Besides, Durham is using the Sussmann trial to lay the framework of a broad "Criminal Conspiracy" (at least this is my impression) - by introducing tons of documents and evidence: Perkins Coie lawyers billing the HRC campaign, calendars for meetings with precise dates, and emails between the conspirators.
Deborah Fine is a much more important piece of the entire criminal conspiracy that we thought. I will write an article on my Substack on that.
yes he walked it into Comey's office, he got a copy thru the McCain Institute.
Nuland also authorized and FBI agent to meet Steele (July 2016). She also talked to Winer. She met with Steele when he was getting desperate and got a copy (October 2016) which is assumed be forwarded from State.
Sept 2016:
"SSA 1 had been forwarded an email on September 30 from the State Department's Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs indicating that senior staff there, including Assistant Secretary Nuland, were aware of a planned meeting between Steele and the FBI in early October in a European city, and that FBI officials from Headquarters were flying to Europe to participate in the meeting."
The testimony by Mook that Hillary approved dissemination of the information to the media is being heavily reported elsewhere. Acknowledgement of that approval is highly unusual. Under normal circumstances, the crooks who work for the Unprosecuted Multiple Felon Formerly Known As "Hillary in a Landslide" know enough to keep her completely insulated so that she can deny knowing anything about the crimes committed on her behalf. The only reason I can think of for them to be saying that Hillary approved this is that they must know that Durham has the proof, so they don't want to risk being charged with perjury.
Contrary to usual trial circumstances, the more evidence of guilt that gets presented, the more this case is looking tougher to win, because of the Hillary donors on the jury, who will probably vote to give Sussman a bonus, since his crimes are what they KNEW they were buying with their donations. Win or lose, when the case is over, they'll probably leave the courthouse and start building a statue to Sussman right outside.
But if there's a case for conspiracy in the works, coming against all of these conspirators --- including people in the FBI and DOJ --- then THAT case is looking stronger by the day --- assuming Durham can bring that case in the Virginia District or any other jurisdiction that won't be guaranteed to have a jury packed with Hillary donors.
I saw somebody bring up 'modified limited hangout' in response to Mook. That probably goes for Sussman and Joffee, too.
Hillary's defense is going to be that none of the campaign staff were competent to judge the true meaning of the technical data, and they were only motivated by the purest of intentions in asking the FBI to verify what looked to them very suspicious, which of course raises the question why Sussman disclaimed connection with the campaign if the data was so compelling. That'll likely be explained by saying he went off the reservation in his zeal to have the information get a fair hearing.
Sussman probably will get a wrist slap but a conviction will establish that Fusion was doing "opposition research" (aka making s#!t up) at the direction and with the knowledge of HFA, and was not just passing their fabrications to reporters but also working to involve the FBI and CIA in their schemes, and that various people in the FBI were going along with them.
yes, Sussman lied to Baker (aka the FBI) to get this fabrication of material to them directly, and then Baker took it to the the Counter Intelligence Division; who miraculously did not check within their own agency to check on the validity (it was discredited by Hellman, the “feels a little 5150ish.” comment), and then CI used it to bolster their fabricated case to open Crossfire W, X, Y and Z. At the same time they started a media campaign to spread the disinformation thru Slate's idiot savant and the NYT... which then led to every media outlet parroting the lies... then doubled down with Steele...
did not mean to indicate otherwise, only that it added weight to their investigation cause, as it was based on flimsy or no real evidence at all... just hypothetical associations. Crossfire Hurricane should have been shut down weeks before Sussman went to Baker, no?
Late yesterday (May 19, 2022), Durham filed a Response to a Motion for Protective Order filed May 12 by former New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, who has been subpoenaed by Sussman to testify on behalf of the defendant.
In Lichtblau's Motion for Protective Order, he agrees to waive his reporter's privilege to answer questions from Sussman's lawyer, but seeks to retain some privilege to refuse to answer certain questions that Durham might have for him on cross-examination. The entire Response by Durham is well worth reading, but here's the entire argument summarized in two paragraphs:
"The Movant has represented that the defendant, Michael Sussmann, has waived confidentiality with respect to his communications with Lichtblau and subpoenaed his testimony at trial. In addition, the defendant agreed to limit the scope of his questioning on direct examination to his communications with Lichtblau. Moreover, in footnote 3 of his filing, Lichtblau references a similar position being taken by Rodney Joffe regarding confidentiality issues.
"The government, however, declined to enter into an agreement restricting its cross-examination of Lichtblau. In the event Lichtblau testifies, the government should not be restricted in its cross-examination of Lichtblau to the self-serving categories of evidence that the Movant requests. The government should be permitted to cross-examine Lichtblau about any communications he had with other individuals, including, but not limited to, Fusion GPS personnel and computer researchers, regarding the alleged connections between the Trump Organization and Alfa bank. To the extent Sussmann, Fusion GPS, or others (including computer researchers) approached or communicated with Lichtblau concerning Alfa Bank or related matters, the government should be permitted to question Lichtblau about such exchanges, as they are relevant to the defendant’s communications with Lichtblau on these same issues and are probative of the defendant’s alleged actions on behalf of clients (Rodney Joffe and the Clinton Campaign). The government also intends to cross-examine Lichtblau on issues pertaining to the credibility and reliability of his testimony."
Durham then goes on to cite the relevant legal authorities indicating that there's no basis for a reporter to claim any privilege while testifying in a criminal trial and no basis to allow a witness to cherry-pick what he will testify to in order to assist a defendant while refusing to answer relevant questions on cross-examination.
If the court agrees with Durham, it seems questionable (or doubtful) that Eric Lichtblau will testify, given the chances of damaging Sussman on cross-examination and possibly implicating others as well if the court won't drastically restrict the scope of cross-examination. So I wouldn't hold my breath expecting Eric Lichtblau to testify as planned.
Here's Durham's written Response (filed May 19) to the NYT reporter's Motion for protective order (filed May 12). If this link will post, it will explain what this is all about better than I can:
Thanks for the document. Seems clear that Lichtblau will not testify if the Judge is fair. Durham has done well in expecting the outcome. Probably won't save Lichtblau in future trials.
Lichtblau (and Sussman) REALLY want to limit Durham's cross-examination, asking for oral arguments AND an opportunity to file an appeal of Judge Cooper rules against him.
You can scroll down, then click "Next" to get to page 2, scroll down again, and somewhere near or at the bottom the judge's ruling on this argument should appear later today or tomorrow --- or sometime before the reporter is scheduled to testify, which should be pretty soon.
Filed documents in the case --- Motions, Responses, Replies, Orders, etc. --- can be accessed by clicking on "Main Document" for that filing. Many procedural Orders show up right on the docket as "Minute Entries."
This argument is happening in written motions, outside the presence of the jury. The court prefers that these things are settled before questioning of a witness begins. And if some argument about what can or can't be asked breaks out while the witness is on the witness stand, the judge will probably call a recess for 10 minutes or whatever, and have the argument where the jury can't hear them.
Sussman is trying to limit the questions that Durham can ask the NYT reporter, and wants to know what the judge will decide before calling this witness to testify, because if the judge won't limit the questions Durham can ask the reporter, it's likely that neither the reporter nor Sussman will want him to testify.
The New York Times is the media outlet that the FBI regularly uses to leak information to. Remember when Comey leaked his "memos" to his friend to give the the Times? If Durham starts asking this reporter questions without the judge limiting him, he can ask all sorts of questions about previous FBI leaks to the NYT, implicating all sorts of people. So Sussman and the NYT reporter want to know ahead of time how far Durham will be allowed to go with his cross-examination.
Meanwhile, I believe this reporter got a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the Russia-Collusion Hoax --- a Prize for pretending that it was real. While doing that writing, he probably got all sorts of information from Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, and/or others at the FBI. They are NOT going to want to give testimony about that stuff, so they want to make sure that the judge won't allow Durham to ask about that stuff. But Durham's written Response to the Motion for a protective order makes it pretty clear that there's no legal precedent for limiting the prosecution's questions during a criminal trial, as long as the information being sought is relevant to the case.
I wish I knew whether I could post a link to Durham's written Response for you to read. Maybe I'll try posting it in a separate reply after I hit the post button for this one.
Can I be a confidential human source? And just roll up to the Hoover building and holler at the top FBI council to give him some info? No! So how do they do it?
I’m really not liking what I’m reading so far. I’m becoming more and more convinced that Durham is protecting the FBLie. Will the middlemen take the fall alone? Sure, Sussman and Elias are big fish in the Clinton Mafia, but their convictions alone won’t do much to fix what’s broken. This prosecution might make things even worse for the country because our corrupt “elite” and our corrupt institutions could be empowered to “go bigger next time” without fear. I hope Techno sees this going differently, and he very well may, because I’m not a lawyerologist.
If Sussman and Danchenko wind up in prison for more than a couple weeks and Sussman loses his license it will be a very valuable example for the future. My fear is that like Clinesmith, conviction will result in a further illustration of how the law is applied differently depending on politics. Flynn, Roger Stone, Papadoupolous were all treated like mafia kingpins and ruined financially. We'll see what happens to Sussman and the others. My prediction is that Sussman gets a suspended sentence and loses his license for 6 months. That will really send a message to "go bigger next time."
I'm ready to believe you except the Federalist has done some pretty good reporting on all this. It would be fine with me if McCain money got spent on undoing the uniparty. Hope for the best . . .
So- allegations of simply communicating with other countries is probable cause for an investigation? Didn’t the Clintons spend years enriching themselves via foreign governments? Were they investigated for their “communications”? And at the start of a speculative investigation the FBI is in contact with The NY Times? Seems like the whole thing was a gross violation of Trump’s (and others) civil rights (4th amendment). Isn’t the statute of limitations longer for a civil rights offence?
Prosecutors are unlikely to charge anyone for a civil rights offense against Trump. However, that's something that he could pursue himself in civil court, and I believe already is.
But according to Durham's response to Sussman's pretrial arguments about statutes of limitation, Durham might be considering a Conspiracy charge against Rodney Joffe. That would likely include a number of others, and I believe the statute of limitations is 7 years for a Conspiracy charge, which could include Conspiracy against Rights, but more-likely would be Conspiracy to defraud the government.
Also, statutes of limitations are often extended when evidence is hidden. It's axiomatic that a crook can't run out a statute of limitation by hiding evidence or lying about evidence. The people apparently involved in the larger conspiracy have been lying and hiding evidence for a LONG time, and probably still are lying and/or hiding evidence. So the usual statutes of limitations might not apply.
Seems like going to the New York Times any time they get a "report" isn't standard practice. I wonder what is the criteria for reporting to them? Would be interesting to see correspondence on that decision.
Former New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau was subpoenaed by Sussman and is currently scheduled to testify on his behalf. But on May 12 he filed a Motion for a protective order that would limit Durham's cross-examination of him. According to Durham's Response filed late on May 19, there's no legal basis for such a protective order and no basis for limiting Durham's cross-examination, other than the usual constraints imposed by relevancy.
If the court doesn't grant Lichtblau's request for a protective order, I suspect he won't testify, because he'd have to answer questions such as yours about the regularity or irregularity of NYT-FBI communications, as well as answering other questions that might further implicate Sussman and others.
If he doesn't get his requested protective order but decides to testify anyway, it should be VERY interesting to hear his response to questions such as yours. Right now, I wouldn't bet on the judge granting his request for a protective order, and therefore wouldn't bet that Lichtblau will testify as originally planned by Sussman.
Can someone in this thread enlighten me on the statute of limitations issues (if any) around any wrongdoing committed by others should a criminal conspiracy be the long game?
I believe the statute of limitation for Conspiracy (which is a crime that takes several forms) is seven years. But statutes of limitation can be affected by various circumstances, such as a conspirator concealing evidence, which stops the statute of limitation from running because crooks cannot use fraud or obstruction to run out a statute of limitation.
You can be sure that Durham knows all about these factors and the various lies and concealments that have been used to hide evidence in an attempt to run out the clock on justice.
So in other words, they all concocted this to use against Trump and Sussman is going to be the only person who gets pinned. Then Joe will pardon him and the DNC will employ him as a "consultant "moving forward, for tons of money, since he will lose his law license taking a fall for Clinton, the FBI, CIA and Obama administration.
I disagree. The Durham Team is using the Sussmann trial to lay the framework to expose the "Criminal Conspiracy".
The Durham Team is doing it by introducing evidence in the Sussmann trial: introducing dozens and dozens of documents, Perkins Coie billing notes, calendar notes, emails, handwritten notes. This comes out clearly if you read carefully the transcripts of Marc Elias (Perkins Coie), James Baker (FBI General Counsel), Deborah Fine (HRC campaign Deputy General Counsel).
Jake Sullivan is mentioned many times during the examination of Marc Elias.
The Sussmann trial is not just about convicting Sussmann (who is already toast, by the way, just reading the James Baker testimony and the notes by Bill Priestap and Trisha Anderson): The Sussmann trial is the way for the Durham Team to introduce dozens of evidence pieces, that I mentioned above, to prove the "Criminal Conspiracy".
Igor Danchenko’s trial will illuminate that the bulk of the Steele dossier was bar talk, fabrication and void of credibility, strictly a smear piece spawned of fantasy and imagination.
Joffe’s trial will further emphasize that that Alfa Bank connections were innocent DNS traffic reconfigured to look like something improper.
There are many players whose fingerprints are on this scam and Durham has lifted their prints; it remains to be seen if he will proceed unfettered.
If they all get trials where the judge and jury are as stacked as they seem to be here, and Durham gets those scalps, we’ll probably need to add him as #5 on Mt Rushmore.
No shit!
The ILLEGAL FISA warrants were the product of the fake Steel dossier.
And no one will be held accountable. Maybe Sussmann will do a few months home probabtion for false statements, and that will be the end.
None of the four warrants had an actual predicate. The Steele hoax report was just the initial made up story used to get an illicit FISA warrant against an American hero in Carter Page.
not Papadopoulos directly; he was the tie to Trump, all he did was repeat what Misfud had told him to Downer (that Downer somehow already knew when he met him) at the bar, then Downer waited until July and went direct to the US Embassy, at a convenient time when the Ambassador was out and Dibble was the point... she then sent it to the FBI thru the LEGAT... FBI dispatched Strzok and SSA-1 (cannot recall his name) where they were told their information was false by Downer. There was no known Russia connection, only the information that Russia had "material" on HRC in the form of emails. Not enough to start an investigation using DOJ/FBI rules. The FBI then used analytics (who could it be if not Papadopoulos?) open the other 3 investigations (Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn). Horowitz Footnote 179
"Case Agent 2's written summary also states that Case Agent 2 informed Steele that Papadopoulos's actions had resulted in a "small analytical effort" that had expanded to include Manafort, Flynn, and Carter Page. – Horowitz Page 109 / Briefing to Steele in Europe"
All 4 signed off by Strzok...
you are correct... I should have said Strzok was involved:
"According to Priestap, he authorized opening the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, based upon these discussions. He told us that the FFG information was provided by a trusted source-the FFG- and he therefore felt it "wise to open an investigation to look into" whether someone associated with the Trump campaign may have accepted the reported offer from the Russians. Priestap also told us that the combination of the FFG information and the FBI's ongoing cyber intrusion investigation of the DNC hacks created a counterintelligence concern that the FBI was "obligated" to investigate. Priestap said that he did not recall any disagreement about the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane, and told us that he was not pressured to open the case. As detailed in Chapter Two, the DIOG provides for two types of predicated investigations, Preliminary Investigations and Full Investigations. A Preliminary Investigation may be opened based upon "any allegation or information" indicative of possible criminal activity or threats to the national security; a Full Investigation may be opened based upon an "articulable factual basis" of possible criminal activity or threats to the national security. In cases opened as Preliminary Investigations, all lawful investigative methods (including CHS and UCE operations) may be used except for mail opening, physical searches requiring a search warrant, electronic surveillance requiring a judicial order or warrant (Title III wiretap or a FISA order), or requests under Title VII of FISA. A Preliminary Investigation may be converted to a Full Investigation if the available information provides predication for a Full Investigation.
- Horowitz report page 53
As to the Hillsdale reference; he was knowledgeable and in a position to stop any and all of this from the start. He did not get the details of the FFG source information or the debrief. He did none of that. Instead he let them go off the reservation. Hillsdale or no.
I agree that there have to be bigger fish to justify the resources used to get this far. We can't know Durham's strategy because he's keep a solid lid. Maybe I'm just dreaming but I still see Durham as a warrior for truth.
Yes, this certainly seems to be a slam dunk. I can only hope this is but framework for some severe crimes, up the ladder, and so on.
I question prosecutors being so receptive to the jurors of HFA support! Sure, they admitted their roles ie, phone banking & donating, but the bias is there. Sadly DC does not seem to be the place for a criminal trial if justice is sought. It's only going to get more difficult. Hopefully a change of venue will occur as things heat up.
This is what it seems to be. This is how you build important criminal conspiracy cases (see Rudy Giuliani vs the 5 Mafia families of NYC).
The evidence introduced so far by the Durham Team is overkill to convict just Sussmann.
I agree about the change of venue: Wash DC is 93% Democrat, 5% Republican, so any jury you assemble in DC is going to be leftist biased. Same for judges.
Great comments. I believe you are correct, but Durham also has a record convicting members of the mafia.
Agreed and Danchenko's trial will be out of D.C., thankfully, in October where I believe that "framework" will get a lot more serious.
I believe Danchenko's trial will be in Virginia.
If Sussman is found guilty, Kash Patel stated there will be 3 months before his sentencing and a huge number of those facing federal prison offer to make a deal for a reduced sentence. Who do you think Sussman might give up that Durham might want?
My best guess (and hope) is Jake Sullivan.....the closer to hillary the better.
... and to Biden!
You will be proven wrong. Durham is a swamp creature, and has a history of being one and he will never go after anyone high level.
You have already been proven wrong. It would make no sense for Durham to have gone this far just to ignore what he has already presented. He would virtually have to declare everything he has done as "wrong". I don't think for a second he wants to end his long career with a large pie in the face that would destroy any good he has ever done.
he only went this far because susman didn't take a plea because he is clearly very arrogant. I have not been "proven wrong" - Durham has NOT gone after anyone high level, nor will he ever go after anyone high level. You must be a troll because your replies are so stupid it's as if you were intentionally ignoring what is said and just keep going with your dumb narrative. Or maybe you are just too dumb to understand what is being said. Won't be replying to any of these anymore.
Gulag Inmate, You have offered nothing to prove anything you say is right.
Except that you have now shown your hand. Trolls & leftists use such phrases as "your replies are so stupid" "your dumb narrative" "you are just too dumb to understand." I won't ask why you use such statements as the answer is obvious.
Why are you on this site?
Never mind, you have already given the answer by your words and actions.
My opinion is the same as Techno Fog and Patriot 19 and many other who are here to learn; that Durham is doing a very good job. Perhaps one day you will want to learn as well.
Thank you, the absence of your infantile replies will be most welcomed.
This trial isn't really relevant as noted. I hope this starts a domino chain, but we shall see. Durham knows much more now. Maybe he will save it for his book.
Perhaps you might not want to question Durham's Integrity. He has never had a leak and usually gets what he goes after. Book deals are the D's way of laundering money with huge upfront advances with few book sales to follow.
Durham is a man of Integrity and we are fortunate to have him in place. Thank Jeff Sessions for that.
They only leak what is convenient to them. It may not have been convenient so they didn't leak. It's not a measure of integrity. In fact maybe the opposite. Maybe if he was a man of integrity, he would leak that hillary was definitely directing this and it was all a scam - I mean Comey was held up as the pinnacle of integrity for doing almost the same (lying to advance the left's objective). So unless we are willing to play by the same rules, we'll never win. And Durham is just another swamp creature - he is going to make damn sure no one in the establishment gets hurt by any of this = no leaks.
They? They?
Don't classify someone whom you know nothing about.
When you are investigating someone to take before a Grand Jury a good prosecutor does not leak anything. He wants to make sure his case is airtight.
Good prosecutors don't attempt to try the accused on the court of public opinion which you seem to think is the new rule of law. It's not!
And don't compare Durham to Comey. Perhaps you better look up the words 'integrity' and 'justice.' Comey didn't know the meaning of these (and I don;t know a single person who thought him to be the pinnacle of integrity...LOL) and you don't have a clue as to the value of these values.
#TROLL
There is no need to respond to my comment. I already know who you are. The fact that you say "Comey was held up as the pinnacle of integrity" tells us which side you are on.
The only people here questioning Durham's integrity are RINO's, Libs, and some real wackos here.
I agree.
awesome reference...
Q said "The FIRST INDICTMENT [unseal] will trigger mass pop awakening.
First arrest will verify action and confirm future direction.
They will fight but you are ready.
Marker [9].
Q"
It is most definitely pointing to the HRC and Durham has laid out the path to more exposure of the evidence. The Igor Danchenko trial is next and possibly more incriminating evidence pointing to HRC and possibly Obama.
Q has proven right about so many things already that I have no reason to doubt him on this.
There is a plan. This is part of the plan. Keep your eyes open and watch for the path to get wider & wider.
I totally agree!
Exceptional post. I could not agree more. Q/X22 have never been proven wrong yet the RINOs and Dims keep on lying.
As Hillary would say, this is a nothing burger. Sussman will be the martyr for the cause to muddy Trump with Russian BS. The rest of the corrupt stooges will remain in the swamp to continue their agendas. While I "hope" accountability returns and lady liberty brings justice to all, I have a feeling that a couple of low level people will only be punished.
Nothing about the corrupt Mueller sham investigation, nothing about corrupt Comey, Strzok, etc. etc. They will walk away from DC richer and having served their purpose with barely a slap on the hand.
Perhaps "patience" is the answer to your negativity, which helps NOTHING. Durham has made VERY CLEAR that other indictments are coming. NO ONE on the list is truly "low level". Some morons even believe Sussman is "low level"; he certainly is NOT.
Jury finds Sussman NOT GUILTY... The DC Swamp protects its own. As Hillary would say, this was a nothing burger. Not gloating here, just so aware of how things truly are corrupt in DC. Our side is in trouble and pinning hopes on 1 person is not the right approach.
Did you know of Sussman prior to Durhams filing? I bet you knew of Perkins Coie and Marc Elias. Sussman is hardly some big time operative of the Democratic corrupt machine and was unknown while others were the heavy hitters (Elias, Podesta 1 & 2, etc.).
The FBI has a mantra that corruption starts at the top and trickles down. Yet with Sussman we are clearly NOT at the top. Listen I pray that Durham brings lady justice to DC and cleans house as its LONG over due. However, I've stopped with the "hope-ism" as for every 1 step forward towards cleaning house, we have nothing burgers EVERYWHERE. Just in the last month, leaked SCOTUS abortion paper (can't find the offender), Penn Election shenanigans (GOP candidate miraculously comes from behind to beat Oz), 40 bln to Ukraine but we can help our small business/restaurants the same week with a 48 bln package. The point the WHOLE system is setup to take care of itself and continue into perpetuity. One man is not going to change things. While I pray and hope Durham is the catalyst to bring about changing the corruption in DC, there are too many other instances that just get swept under the rug.
If "The FBI has a mantra that corruption starts at the top and trickles down" does it not make sense to you that they would want to catch those at the top?
How is that done? Do they arrest people at the top and hope for a bit of miracle evidence to appear or do they start with those supporting & reporting to those at the top? Perhaps you would feel easier and a bit more patient if you looked at the logic of Durham's presentation and order of evidence as well as the evidence itself.
Many of the jurors have likely never heard any of this evidence or HRC supporters may have heard and swallowed the propaganda but have never had an opportunity to see the evidence. This corrupt scheme by HRC and her gang is not merely against R's, but against all the 'common people' D's & I's as well.
We fought against royal tyrannical rule in 1776 and now these corrupt people want to re-establish rule over all of us. We all need food, gas, shelter and the freedom to live our own lives. This war is a battle between the tyrants and those patriots who want freedom. Perhaps it's time to wake up and join the side fighting for your freedom & mine.
God, Bless you ! You are so correct. The "royals" against the "commoners.....been this way for centuries. Blessed are we as a nation to have the Constitution, created by geniuses that had experienced the corruption of the crown and got to realize the Rights of God.
THIS is the truth of it!
"Sussman will be the martyr for the cause to muddy Trump with Russian BS. The rest of the corrupt stooges will remain in the swamp to continue their agendas."
Solid Gold!
You have to know the truth before you can claim something (that is not) to be the truth.
Perhaps if you open both eyes and ears. Sussman is only charged with lying to the FBI, which has already been proven. So, why has Durham exposed so many different people involved in this treason, if he was corruptly planning to stop with Sussman's most minor crime? That would make no sense AT ALL.
Durham Gold !!
If* there is a conviction, of which I wouldn't hold my breath given the judge and jury and depth of corruption across the political and governmental institutions.
Sussmann is not about conviction as much as getting foundational evidence on the record as Durham widens the width and depth leading to the big fish
Exactly, but too much commonsense for some here
Clever...these monsters are slick
Correct.
TY for this Technofog. Safe travels!
You kinda remind me a little of my grouchy cousin, Ray (lol). But, I love the “free speech” thing so much that it’s totally ok! You be you (but keep it clean:) Hope you have a nice day!
Sounds to me like Baker just threw Sussmann under the bus.? The Rat’s are jumping ship.!! Hopefully this continues.?? TY Technofog for all your hard work. Much appreciated.!!
Baker seems to have thrown everybody under the bus.
Apart from Sussman, if I read it right, he has demolished the predicate for the Mueller Investigation.
If they were all so certain in the fall of 2016 that the Alfabank story was garbage, how can Comey, Brennan, Stroke and McCabe, argue that anything that followed so closely afterwards, Mueller, was not a political witch hunt based on equally spurious garbage.
Almost seems like Durham set a trap & they walked right into it.? Time will tell. I’m trying to stay positive.!! There’s already too much negativity.
I agree on the trap and the negativity.
I can see how Durham might EXPECT this trial to be corrupted by the judge and/or a few jurists, and Sussman even getting away with lying to the FBI, but the Danchenko trial will set the stage for "conspiracy to commit treason" in a court that will be much harder to corrupt.....and I believe there will be more "singing birds" willing to save their own sorry asses.
The nagging question I’ve had all day (Before Mook took the stand.) Why would Durham bother going through all of this if he was just going to pull a Barr.?? It makes zero sense. Something would have leaked or Durham would have simply said, “Sorry folks, nothing to see here.!!” I mean, why even bother unsealing an indictment if you’re going to just serve up a Nothing Bar.? I’m pulling back to the 40,000 foot view on this one. I do believe there’s a lot more coming.? I could be wrong.? I hope Technofog reads this and chimes in. Would love to get his opinion.!!!
Mook threw Hillary under the bus.
As a minimum, Mook now brings Hillary into the equation for further examination. If Durhan does actually follow through with uncovering the cabal, then Hillary becomes center stage. One has to assume the Hillary camp has a mole in the Durhan staff. If things heat up for her, she will put maximum pressure on the "big guy" do end Durham's investigation.
Yeah, that's my sticking point as well. If Durham is just another establishment pig, why all of the effort? He could have easily done a Horowitz and just wrapped it all up years ago with the much anticipated "report" or ignored everything all together.
Unless......the trap was actually set BEFORE Durham.
Oooo…. I like where your heads at.!!
Those were exactly my thoughts
Crossfire/Alfa Bank = same same. Both bogus investigations and parts of the same insurrection, and delivered NOTHING honest. Durham clearly wanted and succeeded at implicating hillary and several in her "gang" that included fbi agents working for her BEFORE Crossfire.
Baker didn't throw Sussman under the bus, they are protecting the FBI elite. They all knew the data they were working with and how they were going to use it. Now, only Sussman will get blamed for the Russian collusion narrative and how it was handled. The FBI will claim they were tricked, but we all know they knew what they were doing or else they would not have doctored evidence and then been so impossible to obtain evidence from, once people found out agencies and courts were abused to get Trump.
What happens then, when Durham unseals more indictments.? I believe we’re just seeing the groundwork being laid.? JMO
follows that if "we all know they knew .." answers the question of whether their ruse to throw Sussman under the bus is gonna work, if we knew surely Durham knows more ... waiting to see Durham's next move ...
Thank you, TechnoFog for keeping us updated! I think at this point Michael Sussmann is screwed.
With the testimony of James Baker, and Sussmann billing the meeting to the Hillary Clinton Campaign - as proven by the Durham Team during the examination of Marc Elias - Sussmann DID LIE to the FBI - exactly as Brittain Shaw claimed in her excellent opening argument on Day 2 of the trial.
What do you think?
Besides, Durham is using the Sussmann trial to lay the framework of a broad "Criminal Conspiracy" (at least this is my impression) - by introducing tons of documents and evidence: Perkins Coie lawyers billing the HRC campaign, calendars for meetings with precise dates, and emails between the conspirators.
Deborah Fine is a much more important piece of the entire criminal conspiracy that we thought. I will write an article on my Substack on that.
Wasn’t it around this time that then head of the CIA, John Brennan was was directly involved in personally delivering the Steele dossier to the FBI?
yes he walked it into Comey's office, he got a copy thru the McCain Institute.
Nuland also authorized and FBI agent to meet Steele (July 2016). She also talked to Winer. She met with Steele when he was getting desperate and got a copy (October 2016) which is assumed be forwarded from State.
Sept 2016:
"SSA 1 had been forwarded an email on September 30 from the State Department's Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs indicating that senior staff there, including Assistant Secretary Nuland, were aware of a planned meeting between Steele and the FBI in early October in a European city, and that FBI officials from Headquarters were flying to Europe to participate in the meeting."
The testimony by Mook that Hillary approved dissemination of the information to the media is being heavily reported elsewhere. Acknowledgement of that approval is highly unusual. Under normal circumstances, the crooks who work for the Unprosecuted Multiple Felon Formerly Known As "Hillary in a Landslide" know enough to keep her completely insulated so that she can deny knowing anything about the crimes committed on her behalf. The only reason I can think of for them to be saying that Hillary approved this is that they must know that Durham has the proof, so they don't want to risk being charged with perjury.
Contrary to usual trial circumstances, the more evidence of guilt that gets presented, the more this case is looking tougher to win, because of the Hillary donors on the jury, who will probably vote to give Sussman a bonus, since his crimes are what they KNEW they were buying with their donations. Win or lose, when the case is over, they'll probably leave the courthouse and start building a statue to Sussman right outside.
But if there's a case for conspiracy in the works, coming against all of these conspirators --- including people in the FBI and DOJ --- then THAT case is looking stronger by the day --- assuming Durham can bring that case in the Virginia District or any other jurisdiction that won't be guaranteed to have a jury packed with Hillary donors.
That's quite the Hobson's choice: Hillary's ire or a Federal indictment.
LOL
I saw somebody bring up 'modified limited hangout' in response to Mook. That probably goes for Sussman and Joffee, too.
Hillary's defense is going to be that none of the campaign staff were competent to judge the true meaning of the technical data, and they were only motivated by the purest of intentions in asking the FBI to verify what looked to them very suspicious, which of course raises the question why Sussman disclaimed connection with the campaign if the data was so compelling. That'll likely be explained by saying he went off the reservation in his zeal to have the information get a fair hearing.
Sussman probably will get a wrist slap but a conviction will establish that Fusion was doing "opposition research" (aka making s#!t up) at the direction and with the knowledge of HFA, and was not just passing their fabrications to reporters but also working to involve the FBI and CIA in their schemes, and that various people in the FBI were going along with them.
Why do feel the need to harrass others?
Because he is a Dim troll
You've been filling these coment sections with harrassment of others. Again, why do you feel the need?
And you've no standing to criticize anyone for "hate-filled rhetoric," as your comments are full of same.
The length of time the investigation lasted is irrelevant to the charge that Sussman lied to the FBI to get it started.
Get a job, fool.
yes, Sussman lied to Baker (aka the FBI) to get this fabrication of material to them directly, and then Baker took it to the the Counter Intelligence Division; who miraculously did not check within their own agency to check on the validity (it was discredited by Hellman, the “feels a little 5150ish.” comment), and then CI used it to bolster their fabricated case to open Crossfire W, X, Y and Z. At the same time they started a media campaign to spread the disinformation thru Slate's idiot savant and the NYT... which then led to every media outlet parroting the lies... then doubled down with Steele...
did not mean to indicate otherwise, only that it added weight to their investigation cause, as it was based on flimsy or no real evidence at all... just hypothetical associations. Crossfire Hurricane should have been shut down weeks before Sussman went to Baker, no?
What I respect about Substack, is that posters like Gene Frenkle aren't banned, as their right wing counterparts would be at NYT or Wapo.
I'm genuinely curious though. Who are the people that you would have recommended that Trump put into those key positions back in 2016?
Late yesterday (May 19, 2022), Durham filed a Response to a Motion for Protective Order filed May 12 by former New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, who has been subpoenaed by Sussman to testify on behalf of the defendant.
In Lichtblau's Motion for Protective Order, he agrees to waive his reporter's privilege to answer questions from Sussman's lawyer, but seeks to retain some privilege to refuse to answer certain questions that Durham might have for him on cross-examination. The entire Response by Durham is well worth reading, but here's the entire argument summarized in two paragraphs:
"The Movant has represented that the defendant, Michael Sussmann, has waived confidentiality with respect to his communications with Lichtblau and subpoenaed his testimony at trial. In addition, the defendant agreed to limit the scope of his questioning on direct examination to his communications with Lichtblau. Moreover, in footnote 3 of his filing, Lichtblau references a similar position being taken by Rodney Joffe regarding confidentiality issues.
"The government, however, declined to enter into an agreement restricting its cross-examination of Lichtblau. In the event Lichtblau testifies, the government should not be restricted in its cross-examination of Lichtblau to the self-serving categories of evidence that the Movant requests. The government should be permitted to cross-examine Lichtblau about any communications he had with other individuals, including, but not limited to, Fusion GPS personnel and computer researchers, regarding the alleged connections between the Trump Organization and Alfa bank. To the extent Sussmann, Fusion GPS, or others (including computer researchers) approached or communicated with Lichtblau concerning Alfa Bank or related matters, the government should be permitted to question Lichtblau about such exchanges, as they are relevant to the defendant’s communications with Lichtblau on these same issues and are probative of the defendant’s alleged actions on behalf of clients (Rodney Joffe and the Clinton Campaign). The government also intends to cross-examine Lichtblau on issues pertaining to the credibility and reliability of his testimony."
Durham then goes on to cite the relevant legal authorities indicating that there's no basis for a reporter to claim any privilege while testifying in a criminal trial and no basis to allow a witness to cherry-pick what he will testify to in order to assist a defendant while refusing to answer relevant questions on cross-examination.
If the court agrees with Durham, it seems questionable (or doubtful) that Eric Lichtblau will testify, given the chances of damaging Sussman on cross-examination and possibly implicating others as well if the court won't drastically restrict the scope of cross-examination. So I wouldn't hold my breath expecting Eric Lichtblau to testify as planned.
Wonder why Sussmann thought it necessary to get their limitation point across. They know Durham won't accept the point. Maybe to impress the jury?
Here's Durham's written Response (filed May 19) to the NYT reporter's Motion for protective order (filed May 12). If this link will post, it will explain what this is all about better than I can:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/140/united-states-v-sussmann/
Thanks for the document. Seems clear that Lichtblau will not testify if the Judge is fair. Durham has done well in expecting the outcome. Probably won't save Lichtblau in future trials.
On Sunday afternoon, May 22, Lichtblau filed this reply to Durham's response:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/141/united-states-v-sussmann/
Lichtblau (and Sussman) REALLY want to limit Durham's cross-examination, asking for oral arguments AND an opportunity to file an appeal of Judge Cooper rules against him.
No sweat. Here's the full docket --- now two pages long:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/
You can scroll down, then click "Next" to get to page 2, scroll down again, and somewhere near or at the bottom the judge's ruling on this argument should appear later today or tomorrow --- or sometime before the reporter is scheduled to testify, which should be pretty soon.
Filed documents in the case --- Motions, Responses, Replies, Orders, etc. --- can be accessed by clicking on "Main Document" for that filing. Many procedural Orders show up right on the docket as "Minute Entries."
This argument is happening in written motions, outside the presence of the jury. The court prefers that these things are settled before questioning of a witness begins. And if some argument about what can or can't be asked breaks out while the witness is on the witness stand, the judge will probably call a recess for 10 minutes or whatever, and have the argument where the jury can't hear them.
Sussman is trying to limit the questions that Durham can ask the NYT reporter, and wants to know what the judge will decide before calling this witness to testify, because if the judge won't limit the questions Durham can ask the reporter, it's likely that neither the reporter nor Sussman will want him to testify.
The New York Times is the media outlet that the FBI regularly uses to leak information to. Remember when Comey leaked his "memos" to his friend to give the the Times? If Durham starts asking this reporter questions without the judge limiting him, he can ask all sorts of questions about previous FBI leaks to the NYT, implicating all sorts of people. So Sussman and the NYT reporter want to know ahead of time how far Durham will be allowed to go with his cross-examination.
Meanwhile, I believe this reporter got a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the Russia-Collusion Hoax --- a Prize for pretending that it was real. While doing that writing, he probably got all sorts of information from Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, and/or others at the FBI. They are NOT going to want to give testimony about that stuff, so they want to make sure that the judge won't allow Durham to ask about that stuff. But Durham's written Response to the Motion for a protective order makes it pretty clear that there's no legal precedent for limiting the prosecution's questions during a criminal trial, as long as the information being sought is relevant to the case.
I wish I knew whether I could post a link to Durham's written Response for you to read. Maybe I'll try posting it in a separate reply after I hit the post button for this one.
Can I be a confidential human source? And just roll up to the Hoover building and holler at the top FBI council to give him some info? No! So how do they do it?
The right people, not you or me, have phone numbers. Baker was surprised that Sussmann had his personal number. Wonder how he got the number?
I’m really not liking what I’m reading so far. I’m becoming more and more convinced that Durham is protecting the FBLie. Will the middlemen take the fall alone? Sure, Sussman and Elias are big fish in the Clinton Mafia, but their convictions alone won’t do much to fix what’s broken. This prosecution might make things even worse for the country because our corrupt “elite” and our corrupt institutions could be empowered to “go bigger next time” without fear. I hope Techno sees this going differently, and he very well may, because I’m not a lawyerologist.
If Sussman and Danchenko wind up in prison for more than a couple weeks and Sussman loses his license it will be a very valuable example for the future. My fear is that like Clinesmith, conviction will result in a further illustration of how the law is applied differently depending on politics. Flynn, Roger Stone, Papadoupolous were all treated like mafia kingpins and ruined financially. We'll see what happens to Sussman and the others. My prediction is that Sussman gets a suspended sentence and loses his license for 6 months. That will really send a message to "go bigger next time."
And it turned out Biden stole it from him lmao
Sussman was impartial? why was he at the meeting? the information he gave is not transparent, it had a target, he wasn't impartial, he lies.
(dearlordsaveus) ... sigh ... yes he lies. Q who is he lying to? Hint: it's a transcript ...
Techno, please ban this fool
I'm ready to believe you except the Federalist has done some pretty good reporting on all this. It would be fine with me if McCain money got spent on undoing the uniparty. Hope for the best . . .
McCain was nothing more than a passenger pigeon. He didn’t know anything but was expected to send it forward as a “good American”.
Gonna be interesting who steps in it first.
So- allegations of simply communicating with other countries is probable cause for an investigation? Didn’t the Clintons spend years enriching themselves via foreign governments? Were they investigated for their “communications”? And at the start of a speculative investigation the FBI is in contact with The NY Times? Seems like the whole thing was a gross violation of Trump’s (and others) civil rights (4th amendment). Isn’t the statute of limitations longer for a civil rights offence?
Prosecutors are unlikely to charge anyone for a civil rights offense against Trump. However, that's something that he could pursue himself in civil court, and I believe already is.
But according to Durham's response to Sussman's pretrial arguments about statutes of limitation, Durham might be considering a Conspiracy charge against Rodney Joffe. That would likely include a number of others, and I believe the statute of limitations is 7 years for a Conspiracy charge, which could include Conspiracy against Rights, but more-likely would be Conspiracy to defraud the government.
Also, statutes of limitations are often extended when evidence is hidden. It's axiomatic that a crook can't run out a statute of limitation by hiding evidence or lying about evidence. The people apparently involved in the larger conspiracy have been lying and hiding evidence for a LONG time, and probably still are lying and/or hiding evidence. So the usual statutes of limitations might not apply.
Seems like going to the New York Times any time they get a "report" isn't standard practice. I wonder what is the criteria for reporting to them? Would be interesting to see correspondence on that decision.
Former New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau was subpoenaed by Sussman and is currently scheduled to testify on his behalf. But on May 12 he filed a Motion for a protective order that would limit Durham's cross-examination of him. According to Durham's Response filed late on May 19, there's no legal basis for such a protective order and no basis for limiting Durham's cross-examination, other than the usual constraints imposed by relevancy.
If the court doesn't grant Lichtblau's request for a protective order, I suspect he won't testify, because he'd have to answer questions such as yours about the regularity or irregularity of NYT-FBI communications, as well as answering other questions that might further implicate Sussman and others.
If he doesn't get his requested protective order but decides to testify anyway, it should be VERY interesting to hear his response to questions such as yours. Right now, I wouldn't bet on the judge granting his request for a protective order, and therefore wouldn't bet that Lichtblau will testify as originally planned by Sussman.
Wasn't Steele dropped as a FBI confidential source because of his involvement with the media?
My question is did Hillary sell America uranium to Russia this was sent on Facebook years ago and nothing was never a investigation !
Can someone in this thread enlighten me on the statute of limitations issues (if any) around any wrongdoing committed by others should a criminal conspiracy be the long game?
I believe the statute of limitation for Conspiracy (which is a crime that takes several forms) is seven years. But statutes of limitation can be affected by various circumstances, such as a conspirator concealing evidence, which stops the statute of limitation from running because crooks cannot use fraud or obstruction to run out a statute of limitation.
You can be sure that Durham knows all about these factors and the various lies and concealments that have been used to hide evidence in an attempt to run out the clock on justice.
un impeach Trump