Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Sussman will go to Elias's new firm or somewhere else. Won't be going back to Perkins Coie.

He doesn't practice the kind of law Elias is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barb McQuaid (U-Mich Law Professor)

Hard to see how this statement meets the materiality element. FBI would want to review this evidence whether it came from a former DOJ lawyer or his client. And it seems that this defendant is being held to a very different standard than Mike Flynn was

Prof. Turley has a different view.

[Anonymous]

So basically this guy repeated the same tip that a lot of other people shared, but he didn't fully disclose his work for the Clinton campaign.

I mean, sure if that is illegal then he should be charged, but it seems like a scratch in the flesh wound that people like Flynn have created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barb McQuaid (U-Mich Law Professor)

Hard to see how this statement meets the materiality element. FBI would want to review this evidence whether it came from a former DOJ lawyer or his client. And it seems that this defendant is being held to a very different standard than Mike Flynn was

Prof. Turley has a different view.

Turley is so contrarian he doesn't even care about the law anymore. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barb McQuaid (U-Mich Law Professor)

Hard to see how this statement meets the materiality element. FBI would want to review this evidence whether it came from a former DOJ lawyer or his client. And it seems that this defendant is being held to a very different standard than Mike Flynn was

Prof. Turley has a different view.

Given past performance, I'll stick with McQuaid's view of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Sussman will go to Elias's new firm or somewhere else. Won't be going back to Perkins Coie.

He doesn't practice the kind of law Elias is doing.

Law firms often have lawyers in different practice areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically this guy repeated the same tip that a lot of other people shared, but he didn't fully disclose his work for the Clinton campaign.

I mean, sure if that is illegal then he should be charged, but it seems like a scratch in the flesh wound that people like Flynn have created.

And by the way the indictment is written, there's no materiality. Even if he did straight-up lie, which may or may not be what happened.

[Anonymous]

The only concern that I would have is whether he submitted fake info and whether he knew that info was fake. If not, I see nothing here. Otherwise, DOJ risks discouraging people from forwarding info to the FBI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only concern that I would have is whether he submitted fake info and whether he knew that info was fake. If not, I see nothing here. Otherwise, DOJ risks discouraging people from forwarding info to the FBI.

Tell Durham that. The information was given in good faith and there's no allegations to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Okay, the more I think about this indictment, the worse it seems. I'm going to have to read it and see if it's really this bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Barb McQuaid (U-Mich Law Professor)

Hard to see how this statement meets the materiality element. FBI would want to review this evidence whether it came from a former DOJ lawyer or his client. And it seems that this defendant is being held to a very different standard than Mike Flynn was

Prof. Turley has a different view.

Given past performance, I'll stick with McQuaid's view of the law.

Who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here - the common thread is religious extremism that threatens the separation of church and state

Nonsense, fool.

Not "nonsense" 100% correct.

Got to love the religious fanatics grifting and stealing from hard-working Americans under the guise of "good Christians". Catholics are at the top of the list. The Guardian article is 100% on point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only concern that I would have is whether he submitted fake info and whether he knew that info was fake. If not, I see nothing here. Otherwise, DOJ risks discouraging people from forwarding info to the FBI.

Tell Durham that. The information was given in good faith and there's no allegations to the contrary.

The entire indictment is about Sussman supposedly lying to FBI and telling them he wasn't working on behalf of a client...
Except maybe that conversation never even came up between FBI and Sussman.

I think this will blow up in Durham's face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only concern that I would have is whether he submitted fake info and whether he knew that info was fake. If not, I see nothing here. Otherwise, DOJ risks discouraging people from forwarding info to the FBI.

Tell Durham that. The information was given in good faith and there's no allegations to the contrary.

The entire indictment is about Sussman supposedly lying to FBI and telling them he wasn't working on behalf of a client...
Except maybe that conversation never even came up between FBI and Sussman.

I think this will blow up in Durham's face.

Sussman isn't on the Perkins Coie website anymore. Durham got him fired already. He's happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only concern that I would have is whether he submitted fake info and whether he knew that info was fake. If not, I see nothing here. Otherwise, DOJ risks discouraging people from forwarding info to the FBI.

Tell Durham that. The information was given in good faith and there's no allegations to the contrary.

The entire indictment is about Sussman supposedly lying to FBI and telling them he wasn't working on behalf of a client...
Except maybe that conversation never even came up between FBI and Sussman.

I think this will blow up in Durham's face.

Sussman isn't on the Perkins Coie website anymore. Durham got him fired already. He's happy.

If it turns out it's a nothing burger but Durham got him fired over it anyhow can he go after Durham legally?