Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

The way this charge was written is very different from how the Mueller charges were written. Those were written to tell a story about the charge.

This one is written to tell a story about Trump and how everyone was mean to him. And a lawyer who maybe said something to the FBI.

Or, maybe, how they thought it was okay to do something illegal because "Trump."

No, not really. Did you read the document closely? Did you read any of Mueller's charging documents?

I did read the indictment. There will be more to come. NP. Sussman is going to talk as will others around him.

What “others around him”? You’re not really saying anything here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

What can still be charged?

False statement to agency outside DC in Feb 2017--and others...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

The way this charge was written is very different from how the Mueller charges were written. Those were written to tell a story about the charge.

This one is written to tell a story about Trump and how everyone was mean to him. And a lawyer who maybe said something to the FBI.

Or, maybe, how they thought it was okay to do something illegal because "Trump."

No, not really. Did you read the document closely? Did you read any of Mueller's charging documents?

I did read the indictment. There will be more to come. NP. Sussman is going to talk as will others around him.

What “others around him”? You’re not really saying anything here.

You think he operated in a vacuum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

The way this charge was written is very different from how the Mueller charges were written. Those were written to tell a story about the charge.

This one is written to tell a story about Trump and how everyone was mean to him. And a lawyer who maybe said something to the FBI.

Or, maybe, how they thought it was okay to do something illegal because "Trump."

No, not really. Did you read the document closely? Did you read any of Mueller's charging documents?

I did read the indictment. There will be more to come. NP. Sussman is going to talk as will others around him.

No big firm lawyer is going to plead/flip for this shaky weaksauce.

We’ll now see why Garland was not confirmed. His true colors are coming out.

[Anonymous]

Yep, nothing to see here

[Anonymous]

What interesting timing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

What can still be charged?

False statement to agency outside DC in Feb 2017--and others...

Which false statement to which agency and which others? This sentence doesn’t mean anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These posts are like an alphabet soup of vague and ambiguous pronouns so that the Trump supporters can claim we misinterpreted their posts when they later turn out to be wrong.

“They’re probably talking to them so there could be something else coming that will really make trouble for him because of what they did.”

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

The way this charge was written is very different from how the Mueller charges were written. Those were written to tell a story about the charge.

This one is written to tell a story about Trump and how everyone was mean to him. And a lawyer who maybe said something to the FBI.

Or, maybe, how they thought it was okay to do something illegal because "Trump."

No, not really. Did you read the document closely? Did you read any of Mueller's charging documents?

I did read the indictment. There will be more to come. NP. Sussman is going to talk as will others around him.

What “others around him”? You’re not really saying anything here.

You think he operated in a vacuum?

DP. So you’re not actually talking about anything, you’re just randomly theorizing that there could be other people who might able to help Durham make a case that doesn’t otherwise exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

What can still be charged?

False statement to agency outside DC in Feb 2017--and others...

Government can’t charge the same false statement multiple times, even if the defendant repeated the false statement on multiple occasions, unless the government can show some separate harm from repeating the false statement. That’s been settled law for 30 years or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

What can still be charged?

False statement to agency outside DC in Feb 2017--and others...

Government can’t charge the same false statement multiple times, even if the defendant repeated the false statement on multiple occasions, unless the government can show some separate harm from repeating the false statement. That’s been settled law for 30 years or so.

Exactly. But even if they could, this is a real stretch. Does anyone think the FBI isn't getting emails, snail mail, and phone calls from crackpots with false statements every day? They aren't prosecuting those people.

This is just a very odd thing to charge - guy comes to you with information about something very strange going on and provides information and - it seems - an analysis and says, hey, you might want to take a look at this.

Normally, 18 USC 1001 charges are a) a low hanging fruit charge to get a defendant to cooperate; and 2) based on affirmative statements provided during an investigation that are proven to be false - like Michael Flynn saying he never spoke with the Russian Ambassador when he did.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. But even if they could, this is a real stretch. Does anyone think the FBI isn't getting emails, snail mail, and phone calls from crackpots with false statements every day? They aren't prosecuting those people.

Did their accusations result in years of accusations by the media and a Special Counsel that there was collusion? Damaging to the office of the President?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. But even if they could, this is a real stretch. Does anyone think the FBI isn't getting emails, snail mail, and phone calls from crackpots with false statements every day? They aren't prosecuting those people.

Did their accusations result in years of accusations by the media and a Special Counsel that there was collusion? Damaging to the office of the President?

Are you for real?

And the only damage to the office of the President has been done by Trump and the GOP. Take it up with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. That statement was made to the CIA, I believe. It was included to bolster this claim but is not a second count. And, just like the statement to the FBI, not provable.

It can still be charged. This is not over. And, some other individuals alluded to in the indictment are either worried or cooperating.

What can still be charged?

False statement to agency outside DC in Feb 2017--and others...

Government can’t charge the same false statement multiple times, even if the defendant repeated the false statement on multiple occasions, unless the government can show some separate harm from repeating the false statement. That’s been settled law for 30 years or so.

Exactly. But even if they could, this is a real stretch. Does anyone think the FBI isn't getting emails, snail mail, and phone calls from crackpots with false statements every day? They aren't prosecuting those people.

This is just a very odd thing to charge - guy comes to you with information about something very strange going on and provides information and - it seems - an analysis and says, hey, you might want to take a look at this.

Normally, 18 USC 1001 charges are a) a low hanging fruit charge to get a defendant to cooperate; and 2) based on affirmative statements provided during an investigation that are proven to be false - like Michael Flynn saying he never spoke with the Russian Ambassador when he did.

The FBI GC certainly realized that, whether or not Sussman was formally representing Hillary, Sussman's law firm worked for Hillary and, accordingly, the info would have benefited her. No one pulled a fast on the FBI GC here. Moreover, they investigated the server link, found nothing, and moved onto other matters. That presumably is what we want.

[Anonymous]

The FBI GC certainly realized that, whether or not Sussman was formally representing Hillary, Sussman's law firm worked for Hillary and, accordingly, the info would have benefited her. No one pulled a fast on the FBI GC here. Moreover, they investigated the server link, found nothing, and moved onto other matters. That presumably is what we want.

The above statement completely undercuts the case then.

I don't know, maybe Sussman turns out to be a villain. I'll wait and see. What I've read and seen so far is not convincing me of that but has renewed my standing objection to the pettiness of the FBI.