Barr and Durham

[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.

Seems to me that not many of Turley's legal takes have been holding water lately.

[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.

Seems to me that not many of Turley's legal takes have been holding water lately.

Yep. But, the crowd here prefers the MSNBC contributor Barb McQuade because their opinions agree with hers. It's pretty much a requirement as an MSNBC contributor to have a "progressive, Democratic" take on things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems to me that not many of Turley's legal takes have been holding water lately.

Yep. But, the crowd here prefers the MSNBC contributor Barb McQuade because their opinions agree with hers. It's pretty much a requirement as an MSNBC contributor to have a "progressive, Democratic" take on things.

Misread the post prior to mine...... Turley's takes HAVE held water. Unlike McQuade's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other words, you have no clue what kind of law Elias’s new firm is practicing, why they had to leave Perkins Coie to do it, or why they basically can’t expand their practice areas to being Sussman on board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems to me that not many of Turley's legal takes have been holding water lately.

Yep. But, the crowd here prefers the MSNBC contributor Barb McQuade because their opinions agree with hers. It's pretty much a requirement as an MSNBC contributor to have a "progressive, Democratic" take on things.

The only take I care about is the one that's right more often than wrong. I don't watch MSNBC, I don't know who Barb McQuade is, but I do know that Turley has been wrong quite a bit lately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other words, you have no clue what kind of law Elias’s new firm is practicing, why they had to leave Perkins Coie to do it, or why they basically can’t expand their practice areas to being Sussman on board.

Maybe you aren't paying attention. These days, Elias is doing election law and is absolutely crushing it. Already has defeated several dozen stupid GOP "stop the steal" lawsuits. Elias is a goddamn hero to democracy.

https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems to me that not many of Turley's legal takes have been holding water lately.

Yep. But, the crowd here prefers the MSNBC contributor Barb McQuade because their opinions agree with hers. It's pretty much a requirement as an MSNBC contributor to have a "progressive, Democratic" take on things.

Misread the post prior to mine...... Turley's takes HAVE held water. Unlike McQuade's.

LMAO really? In what universe? Because if it were true, Trump would be serving his second term and most of the Democrats would be in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems to me that not many of Turley's legal takes have been holding water lately.

Yep. But, the crowd here prefers the MSNBC contributor Barb McQuade because their opinions agree with hers. It's pretty much a requirement as an MSNBC contributor to have a "progressive, Democratic" take on things.

Misread the post prior to mine...... Turley's takes HAVE held water. Unlike McQuade's.

LMAO really? In what universe? Because if it were true, Trump would be serving his second term and most of the Democrats would be in jail.

Because, yeah, no corruption in the Dem party This particular indictment is significant. Kind of weak, given it’s so late in the game, but make no mistake, there are democrats involved in all this, getting very nervous. As eager as Dems were to get out the Mueller Report, don’t expect the same eagerness with Durham’s. Expect a huge push to hide it from the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems to me that not many of Turley's legal takes have been holding water lately.

Yep. But, the crowd here prefers the MSNBC contributor Barb McQuade because their opinions agree with hers. It's pretty much a requirement as an MSNBC contributor to have a "progressive, Democratic" take on things.

Misread the post prior to mine...... Turley's takes HAVE held water. Unlike McQuade's.

LMAO really? In what universe? Because if it were true, Trump would be serving his second term and most of the Democrats would be in jail.

Because, yeah, no corruption in the Dem party This particular indictment is significant. Kind of weak, given it’s so late in the game, but make no mistake, there are democrats involved in all this, getting very nervous. As eager as Dems were to get out the Mueller Report, don’t expect the same eagerness with Durham’s. Expect a huge push to hide it from the public.

After all of the corruption suppressed and swept under the table by Barr etc - including putting the brakes on the Mueller. Yet there was far more damning and corrupt stuff that came out of the Trump administration than anywhere else - and we continue to learn more and more about the massive problems in the Trump administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because, yeah, no corruption in the Dem party This particular indictment is significant. Kind of weak, given it’s so late in the game, but make no mistake, there are democrats involved in all this, getting very nervous. As eager as Dems were to get out the Mueller Report, don’t expect the same eagerness with Durham’s. Expect a huge push to hide it from the public.

Addressing the accusation on Friday morning, attorney Toobin admitted he found the charge bizarre and likely to fall apart under further scrutiny, while Jarrett noted that Durham spent five years and came up almost empty-handed.

"I think counselor Jarrett gave a very accurate description of the charges here," Toobin began. "But, if I can just add how weird this case is and how unusual even this case is. First of all, Sussman isn't charged with lying to an FBI agent. He's charged with voluntarily going to a lawyer at the FBI, the top lawyer Jim Baker, and describing what might be a crime and saying you should look into this."

https://www.rawstory.com/john-durham-2655054134/


It's only significance is how partisan it looks for several years of an investigation that basically turned up nothing. Compare it to the Mueller investigation which was cut short and had far more impact against criming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because, yeah, no corruption in the Dem party This particular indictment is significant. Kind of weak, given it’s so late in the game, but make no mistake, there are democrats involved in all this, getting very nervous. As eager as Dems were to get out the Mueller Report, don’t expect the same eagerness with Durham’s. Expect a huge push to hide it from the public.

Addressing the accusation on Friday morning, attorney Toobin admitted he found the charge bizarre and likely to fall apart under further scrutiny, while Jarrett noted that Durham spent five years and came up almost empty-handed.

"I think counselor Jarrett gave a very accurate description of the charges here," Toobin began. "But, if I can just add how weird this case is and how unusual even this case is. First of all, Sussman isn't charged with lying to an FBI agent. He's charged with voluntarily going to a lawyer at the FBI, the top lawyer Jim Baker, and describing what might be a crime and saying you should look into this."

https://www.rawstory.com/john-durham-2655054134/


It's only significance is how partisan it looks for several years of an investigation that basically turned up nothing. Compare it to the Mueller investigation which was cut short and had far more impact against criming.

+1 Needs a picture.

[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.

The FBI knew that he represented the DNC, so they knew what side he was on. This is a stupid trivial charge that no legit prosecutor would ever pursue.

[Anonymous]

Not over yet

[Anonymous]

The interesting bits: tech company bigwig colluding with Sussman via email (along with a large corporate exec) to deliberately falsify the bank/Russia/Trump link. Oh, emails also included many media employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interesting bits: tech company bigwig colluding with Sussman via email (along with a large corporate exec) to deliberately falsify the bank/Russia/Trump link. Oh, emails also included many media employees.

Except that's nonsense.

The Alfa Bank stuff was very strange. Provocative. Came to nothing after significant government and private investigation. That's not fake.