Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the FISA filings that happened while Trump was president Got it.

Hilarious that you think this is his fault.
The same agency that had numerous errors and false statements on warrants AGAINST people in his administration.

DP. Actually, seems to show that the errors in the Carter Page FISA warrants were not political. Business as usual.

Except that pesky little email that the FBI attorney changed claiming that Page did NOT work for the CIA.
Hard to brush that off as "business as usual."

If you say so, dear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the FISA filings that happened while Trump was president Got it.

Hilarious that you think this is his fault.
The same agency that had numerous errors and false statements on warrants AGAINST people in his administration.

DP. Actually, seems to show that the errors in the Carter Page FISA warrants were not political. Business as usual.

Except that pesky little email that the FBI attorney changed claiming that Page did NOT work for the CIA.
Hard to brush that off as "business as usual."

Anonymous wrote:There were more subpoenas issued yesterday. Plot thickens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the FISA filings that happened while Trump was president Got it.

Hilarious that you think this is his fault.
The same agency that had numerous errors and false statements on warrants AGAINST people in his administration.

DP. Actually, seems to show that the errors in the Carter Page FISA warrants were not political. Business as usual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the FISA filings that happened while Trump was president Got it.

Hilarious that you think this is his fault.
The same agency that had numerous errors and false statements on warrants AGAINST people in his administration.

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the FISA filings that happened while Trump was president Got it.

Anonymous wrote:Durham omitted the context of evidence to the extent it changes the meaning. The indictment looks not just weak, but blatantly dishonest.

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.

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.

The notes that Durham is relying on actually flat out say: "Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc." The idea that the FBI didn't know this guy was biased is absolutely insane.

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.

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.