Likely the key to breaking the stone wall of information: “DARPA contract, federal contract, at issue here, which we have been looking at closely.”
I’ll not retract my bet on DARPA “DREaM” being the CIA’s “Bulk Surveillance Program” and was the need for a legal “inference” into a technology the CIA claims is NOT “technically plausible”
"I’ll also add that the fact that privilege applies to some of these documents strengthens the Special Counsel’s argument that Sussmann was representing a client when he met with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016."
This was such a fab revelation.. karma, unintended consequence or strategic genius it's fantastic.. every pinch of pressure on the dirtbags & liars is effort well spent.
Concerning that aspect of the ruling that Durham waited too long to bring the privilege issue to the court's attention: I still can't understand why the prosecution had no response ready when two opposing lawyers argued in the hearing that Durham waited too long --- leading to the ruling that the documents can't be used at trial.
The fact that the FEC had just recently ruled that Hillary's campaign and the DNC violated the law by failing to report campaign expenditures that were wrongfully concealed by false claims that payments to Perkins Coie were "legal expenses," would have been sufficient explanation for bringing the matter to the court's attention 5 weeks before trial, just one week after the FEC closed its investigation. But Durham's lawyers didn't respond to the accusations of opposing lawyers during the hearing.
That is NOT a good sign. Those arguments were known and expected at the hearing, since they had been expressly made in filed Motions and Responses. So Durham's lawyers should have had answers ready for that hearing, but instead had no response of any kind.
Hopefully during the trial the prosecution will have responses ready when opposing lawyers make arguments that the prosecution has every reason to expect.
Doesn't this beg the question though as to why Sussman was only charged with a single, very narrow charge of lying? For instance, if there exists emails proving he was involved in a fraudulent conspiracy with Joffe against the government, why does Sussman get off with a lowly charge of simple lying, especially when there is a real possibility that the Court could rule the lie was immaterial?
I'm emotion filled right now. History, Mom passed away 10 years old. Dad could cope but not with me a newborn as mom didn't get home from hospital much. Dad was escorted out of California eventually and one phrase they often said and today is tender day I suppose, SandieBabe, don't ever lose sight of the forest you love to play in but the real world can only see the trees from a distance around them BUT❤️🔥 you see the magic.❤️🔥🕊💙👣👐💎💐❤️🩹
Judge Cooper issued another evidentiary ruling today (Friday, May 13) which is favorable to Sussman.
If Sussman's lawyers lay the proper foundation at trial to overcome the rule against hearsay, notes taken during a joint DOJ-FBI meeting will be allowed to be read into evidence, which appear to show that everyone in that meeting, (including Baker, whom Sussman allegedly lied to) was aware that Sussman WAS representing a client. The pertinent part of the ruling states as follows:
"Meeting attendees from the DOJ included Boente, Mary McCord, Tashina Gauhar, and Scott Schools. Id. Attendees from the FBI included Andrew McCabe (then-Deputy Director of the FBI) and then FBI General Counsel James Baker, along with Trisha Anderson and William Priestap. Id. The notes taken by Ms. McCord and Ms. Gauhar suggest that Mr. McCabe advised the group that the Alfa Bank allegations were shared with the FBI by an 'attorney . . . on behalf of his client'"
That could conceivably be enough to raise reasonable doubt and make this case very difficult for the prosecution to win unless Durham's team figures out how to shut that reasonable doubt down.
Don’t get lost seeing the forest through the trees ... the importance of spying on an INCOMING and SITTING PRESIDENT is profound
Michael Cohen had all the email between him and the Trump organization seized and used against him. Double Standard?
Keep up the Great Work Techno Fog!!! Spread the word!!
TechNo_Fog!!!
Likely the key to breaking the stone wall of information: “DARPA contract, federal contract, at issue here, which we have been looking at closely.”
I’ll not retract my bet on DARPA “DREaM” being the CIA’s “Bulk Surveillance Program” and was the need for a legal “inference” into a technology the CIA claims is NOT “technically plausible”
TY for your clear writing. Your analysis is welcome for we without legal training or bent.
"I’ll also add that the fact that privilege applies to some of these documents strengthens the Special Counsel’s argument that Sussmann was representing a client when he met with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016."
This was such a fab revelation.. karma, unintended consequence or strategic genius it's fantastic.. every pinch of pressure on the dirtbags & liars is effort well spent.
Some beautiful minds spend time in this space. Ty for letting me stay. I'm wanted to be gone from most. ❌️⭕️
DNC and Biden cabal claims that a biggest domestic threat are “white supremacists” – while financing and arming Ukro-Nazis !! What a FRAUD…
Your taxpaying money is paying for salaries of card carrying Ukraine Nazis – THINK about that !!
Concerning that aspect of the ruling that Durham waited too long to bring the privilege issue to the court's attention: I still can't understand why the prosecution had no response ready when two opposing lawyers argued in the hearing that Durham waited too long --- leading to the ruling that the documents can't be used at trial.
The fact that the FEC had just recently ruled that Hillary's campaign and the DNC violated the law by failing to report campaign expenditures that were wrongfully concealed by false claims that payments to Perkins Coie were "legal expenses," would have been sufficient explanation for bringing the matter to the court's attention 5 weeks before trial, just one week after the FEC closed its investigation. But Durham's lawyers didn't respond to the accusations of opposing lawyers during the hearing.
That is NOT a good sign. Those arguments were known and expected at the hearing, since they had been expressly made in filed Motions and Responses. So Durham's lawyers should have had answers ready for that hearing, but instead had no response of any kind.
Hopefully during the trial the prosecution will have responses ready when opposing lawyers make arguments that the prosecution has every reason to expect.
Doesn't this beg the question though as to why Sussman was only charged with a single, very narrow charge of lying? For instance, if there exists emails proving he was involved in a fraudulent conspiracy with Joffe against the government, why does Sussman get off with a lowly charge of simple lying, especially when there is a real possibility that the Court could rule the lie was immaterial?
I'm emotion filled right now. History, Mom passed away 10 years old. Dad could cope but not with me a newborn as mom didn't get home from hospital much. Dad was escorted out of California eventually and one phrase they often said and today is tender day I suppose, SandieBabe, don't ever lose sight of the forest you love to play in but the real world can only see the trees from a distance around them BUT❤️🔥 you see the magic.❤️🔥🕊💙👣👐💎💐❤️🩹
Seth Rich says "cool"
Hey Techno_Fog!!!
Just stumbled on to something you might enjoy reading.
It’s certainly not the smoking gun. However, with my unusual spidey senses, I think the topic and where it originates isn’t merely coincidental.
https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/62452/LARGEST_UNETHICAL_MEDICAL_EXPERIMENT_FINAL.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
Judge Cooper issued another evidentiary ruling today (Friday, May 13) which is favorable to Sussman.
If Sussman's lawyers lay the proper foundation at trial to overcome the rule against hearsay, notes taken during a joint DOJ-FBI meeting will be allowed to be read into evidence, which appear to show that everyone in that meeting, (including Baker, whom Sussman allegedly lied to) was aware that Sussman WAS representing a client. The pertinent part of the ruling states as follows:
"Meeting attendees from the DOJ included Boente, Mary McCord, Tashina Gauhar, and Scott Schools. Id. Attendees from the FBI included Andrew McCabe (then-Deputy Director of the FBI) and then FBI General Counsel James Baker, along with Trisha Anderson and William Priestap. Id. The notes taken by Ms. McCord and Ms. Gauhar suggest that Mr. McCabe advised the group that the Alfa Bank allegations were shared with the FBI by an 'attorney . . . on behalf of his client'"
That could conceivably be enough to raise reasonable doubt and make this case very difficult for the prosecution to win unless Durham's team figures out how to shut that reasonable doubt down.
this case will drag on forever..
this case will drag on forever if it has not proceeded further yet..