Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Checking in here…finding out that DCUM is still full of peeps who took Russiagate at face value.

Things are just going to look worse and worse.

In 2024 Durham will come up with something. Right?

didn't he just come up with something?

Not really, no.

It’s a grand jury indictment. Guessing it means something to the defendant.

Well, it sure does. He got fired for it.

For this nonsense. Any sensible person would be pretty disgusted with Durham for this.

Nope. A sensible person wouldn’t think that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge on Sussmann’s case was a parter at Covington & Burling LLP and served on the Obama/Biden transition team as an advisor on Justice Department issues. Seems totally fair.

Dying laughing that weird, coincidental linkages between Trump Tower's servers and a dodgy Russian bank's servers are a conspiracy theory, but linkages between Big Law and the Washington elites are something with real teeth.

There's a reason why people pay big bucks to go to a Top 10 law school.

Huh?

Correct response, PP. Connected computers doing next to nothing is no matter. BS stories passed to reporters in order to snag the FBI’s interest is corruption, big time.

Huh is the correct response.

Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Checking in here…finding out that DCUM is still full of peeps who took Russiagate at face value.

Things are just going to look worse and worse.

In 2024 Durham will come up with something. Right?

didn't he just come up with something?

Not really, no.

It’s a grand jury indictment. Guessing it means something to the defendant.

Well, it sure does. He got fired for it.

For this nonsense. Any sensible person would be pretty disgusted with Durham for this.

Why? Nonpartisan answers only, please.

Because there’s no admissible evidence that the allegedly false statement was made. There were two parties to the conversation. Neither took notes. There is no recording or transcript. The other party, the FBI GC, has testified under oath that he doesn’t clearly remember the conversation and doesn’t recall Sussman saying he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. The only evidence that the statement was made are notes taken by a person the FBI GC talked to, and they are pretty vague. Those notes will get bounced as inadmissible hearsay in pre-trial motions, and the case will then collapse.

[Anonymous]

Barr illegally appointed U.S. Attorney Durham as Special Counsel (see 28 CFR 600.3). After Sussman’s lawyers bring this up in trial, charges will be dismissed and Durham’s term as Special Counsel will end.

If Barr knew that Durham was uncovering any real dirt during his investigation while serving as U.S. Attorney, Barr would not have pissed it all away with an overtly illegal Special Counsel appointment of Durham.

Barr and Durham did all this just to get crazy Trump off their backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barr illegally appointed U.S. Attorney Durham as Special Counsel (see 28 CFR 600.3). After Sussman’s lawyers bring this up in trial, charges will be dismissed and Durham’s term as Special Counsel will end.

If Barr knew that Durham was uncovering any real dirt during his investigation while serving as U.S. Attorney, Barr would not have pissed it all away with an overtly illegal Special Counsel appointment of Durham.

Barr and Durham did all this just to get crazy Trump off their backs.

someone’s been reading Lawfare ….

[Anonymous]

Because there’s no admissible evidence that the allegedly false statement was made. There were two parties to the conversation. Neither took notes. There is no recording or transcript. The other party, the FBI GC, has testified under oath that he doesn’t clearly remember the conversation and doesn’t recall Sussman saying he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. The only evidence that the statement was made are notes taken by a person the FBI GC talked to, and they are pretty vague. Those notes will get bounced as inadmissible hearsay in pre-trial motions, and the case will then collapse.

The statement was made to the FBI again--in February--and outside DC. Different venue.
This is not over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because there’s no admissible evidence that the allegedly false statement was made. There were two parties to the conversation. Neither took notes. There is no recording or transcript. The other party, the FBI GC, has testified under oath that he doesn’t clearly remember the conversation and doesn’t recall Sussman saying he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. The only evidence that the statement was made are notes taken by a person the FBI GC talked to, and they are pretty vague. Those notes will get bounced as inadmissible hearsay in pre-trial motions, and the case will then collapse.

The statement was made to the FBI again--in February--and outside DC. Different venue.
This is not over.

You can’t change your sworn testimony, even if a different venue, without creating serious issues for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because there’s no admissible evidence that the allegedly false statement was made. There were two parties to the conversation. Neither took notes. There is no recording or transcript. The other party, the FBI GC, has testified under oath that he doesn’t clearly remember the conversation and doesn’t recall Sussman saying he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. The only evidence that the statement was made are notes taken by a person the FBI GC talked to, and they are pretty vague. Those notes will get bounced as inadmissible hearsay in pre-trial motions, and the case will then collapse.

The statement was made to the FBI again--in February--and outside DC. Different venue.
This is not over.

You can’t change your sworn testimony, even if a different venue, without creating serious issues for yourself.

I don't think Sussman has sworn anything yet? Except to plead "not guilty." But, if Baker and another government rep is saying the same thing, it will be more difficult for him.

[Anonymous]

Read the whole thread:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because there’s no admissible evidence that the allegedly false statement was made. There were two parties to the conversation. Neither took notes. There is no recording or transcript. The other party, the FBI GC, has testified under oath that he doesn’t clearly remember the conversation and doesn’t recall Sussman saying he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. The only evidence that the statement was made are notes taken by a person the FBI GC talked to, and they are pretty vague. Those notes will get bounced as inadmissible hearsay in pre-trial motions, and the case will then collapse.

The statement was made to the FBI again--in February--and outside DC. Different venue.
This is not over.

You can’t change your sworn testimony, even if a different venue, without creating serious issues for yourself.

Do you mean Baker? You're correct, he's going to have a hard time changing his sworn testimony that he doesn't remember.

How can it seem okay to anyone that Sussman is being charged with lying to the FBI and the FBI doesn't remember?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because there’s no admissible evidence that the allegedly false statement was made. There were two parties to the conversation. Neither took notes. There is no recording or transcript. The other party, the FBI GC, has testified under oath that he doesn’t clearly remember the conversation and doesn’t recall Sussman saying he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. The only evidence that the statement was made are notes taken by a person the FBI GC talked to, and they are pretty vague. Those notes will get bounced as inadmissible hearsay in pre-trial motions, and the case will then collapse.

The statement was made to the FBI again--in February--and outside DC. Different venue.
This is not over.

You can’t change your sworn testimony, even if a different venue, without creating serious issues for yourself.

Do you mean Baker? You're correct, he's going to have a hard time changing his sworn testimony that he doesn't remember.

How can it seem okay to anyone that Sussman is being charged with lying to the FBI and the FBI doesn't remember?

And the FBI knew that he worked for the law firm that represented the DNC. Moreover, the idea that the FBI takes anybody's statements at face value is absurd. This is nothing unless the info was false, and Sussman knew it was false, neither of which appears to be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read the whole thread:

Why? Glenn Greenwald hates Hilary Clinton with a relentless passion and will contort anything to support his hatred of her. He’s not really credible on anything at all related to Hilary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because there’s no admissible evidence that the allegedly false statement was made. There were two parties to the conversation. Neither took notes. There is no recording or transcript. The other party, the FBI GC, has testified under oath that he doesn’t clearly remember the conversation and doesn’t recall Sussman saying he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. The only evidence that the statement was made are notes taken by a person the FBI GC talked to, and they are pretty vague. Those notes will get bounced as inadmissible hearsay in pre-trial motions, and the case will then collapse.

The statement was made to the FBI again--in February--and outside DC. Different venue.
This is not over.

You better go tell Durham then, because he didn’t mention that in the indictment. And he brought it in DC. But when you call him up with your tip, be sure not to lie.

[Anonymous]

You better go tell Durham then, because he didn’t mention that in the indictment. And he brought it in DC. But when you call him up with your tip, be sure not to lie.

Go read the indictment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the whole thread:

Why? Glenn Greenwald hates Hilary Clinton with a relentless passion and will contort anything to support his hatred of her. He’s not really credible on anything at all related to Hilary.

Is he wrong here? No, he isn’t.