AG Barr appoints Durham as Spec. Counsel investigating Russia probe origins, Jews-media ignores

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
ABC, CBS, NBC Evening Newscasts Ignore AG Barr Appointing John Durham As Special Counsel To Continue Investigation Into Russia Probe Origins

News Kickby News Kick-1 hours ago in News 0 comments

Link: http://www.tathasta.com/2020/12/abc-cbs-nbc-evening-newscasts-ignore-ag.html

The major networks ignored news of a new special counsel appointment on their evening newscasts, even as liberal networks CNN and MSNBC mentioned it.

In a letter dated December 1, Attorney General Bill Barr informed the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as special counsel so that he can continue to investigate the origins of the Russia probe even though a new administration will begin. The news of Durham’s appointment was reported Tuesday afternoon, yet the evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC didn’t include it in their programs.

As Fox News reported, the networks did include news that Barr told the Associated Press that Justice Department investigators hadn’t found enough evidence of voter fraud to overturn the results of the 2020 election. As The Daily Wire reported, some networks erroneously reported this to mean the voter fraud investigation was over, prompting the DOJ to dispute the claims.

“Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election,” a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement on Tuesday. “That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated. The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.”

“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. … And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr added. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.”





The Trump campaign’s legal team responded to Barr’s assertions that the DOJ has looked into allegations but have so far found nothing by claiming “there hasn’t been any semblance of a Department of Justice investigation.” The legal team alleged the DOJ hasn’t looked into the evidence presented and said, “with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud.”

In his letter to congressional committees, Barr wrote that appointing Durham as special counselor makes him “authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.”

Durham has long been seen as the man who would hold people accountable for the investigation into alleged collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of such collusion, and a DOJ Inspector General report found numerous inaccuracies and omissions used to obtain FISA warrants to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Durham was appointed to investigate how such a baseless investigation was started and has so far criminally charged one former FBI lawyer. Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering an email to make it appear as though Page had not previously assisted the CIA, when in fact he had.
 
Report: Durham Putting Evidence In Front Of Grand Jury — Additional Criminal Charges?

03:03

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2021/08/report-durham-putting-evidence-in-front.html

Will there finally be charges against the Russiagate conspirators — or is this another head fake?

The AP is reporting that John Durham has been presenting evidence in front of a grand jury:


John Durham, the federal prosecutor tapped to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation, has been presenting evidence before a grand jury as part of his probe, a person familiar with the matter said Friday.

The development is a potential sign that Durham may be mulling additional criminal charges beyond the one he brought last year against a former FBI lawyer who admitted altering an email about a Trump campaign aide who’d been under FBI surveillance. Durham is also expected to complete a report at some point.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, citing an ongoing investigation.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier Friday that Durham was presenting evidence to a grand jury and contemplating possible charges against some FBI employees and others outside government. A person familiar with the matter, who was not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed Durham’s use of the grand jury to The Associated Press.

The Durham probe has had one indictment so far.

Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, pleaded guilty to altering an email for a FISA warrant.

The National Review reported:

Kevin Clinesmith, the former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email that he used to apply for a FISA warrant against former Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page, was sentenced to 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service on Friday.

In August, Clinesmith pleaded guilty to “one count of making a false statement within both the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the U.S. government, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years and a fine of up to $250,000.”

Clinesmith’s is the first criminal case to arise from now-Special Counsel John Durham’s probe into the Trump-Russia investigation.

In a court filing last month, Durham asked the judge to sentence Clinesmith to a prison sentence of up to six months — a jail term “between the middle and upper end” of the recommended sentence for the crime of making false statements in writing.

George Papadopoulos, one of the targets of the Deep State, predicted the report will drop this summer.

He is also confident in the Durham probe saying that “Durham is very real.”

George: My opinion is that Durham is very real… I know who he has interviewed in October 2019. Specific guys with the U.S. intelligence community that should not have been meeting with me, this infamous Australian diplomat, we know he’s spoken to the Italians, to various governments. He has been working non-stop since 2019 where I think he got all the juicy info back then. Then Barr appoints some special council a month before Biden goes to the White House, and now Durham is simply, in my opinion like I said I don’t talk to Durham, he’s waiting for the right moment to expose what he has learned and I think it is going to be tantamount to conspiracy in the Obama Administration. I truly believe that. I think he is incredibly real and I would actually put my entire reputation on the line saying this… It’s going to be very interesting to see when and how that information comes out, how the media tries to deflect or cover it up.

Trump has released multiple statements wondering what is taking the Durham probe so long.

In his latest statement, he asked, “Where’s Durham?”
 
44 Senate Republicans Demand John Durham Report Be Made Public

By Jack Phillips
August 19, 2021 Updated: August 19, 2021

Link: https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_b...ohn-durham-report-be-made-public_3956190.html

The pending report from special counsel John Durham, who was tasked with investigating the origins of the FBI’s Trump–Russia probe, should be released to the public, Senate Republicans argued in a letter this week.

More than 40 Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), signed a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland asking that Durham, a former U.S. attorney, be allowed to continue his investigation and that his report is released to the public.

There have been questions about whether Durham’s investigation will lack funding past the end of the federal government’s fiscal year on Sept. 30. He was tapped by then-Attorney General William Barr to investigate the FBI’s operations when it surveilled former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Barr elevated Durham to become special counsel in October 2020.

“The Special Counsel’s ongoing work is important to many Americans who were disturbed that government agents subverted lawful process to conduct inappropriate surveillance for political purposes,” the Republican senators’ letter reads. “The truth pursued by this investigation is necessary to ensure transparency in our intelligence agencies and restore faith in our civil liberties. Thus, it is essential that the Special Counsel’s ongoing review should be allowed to continue unimpeded and without undue limitations.”

The Republicans called on Garland to make a pledge to release the full report and allow Durham to investigate past September.

“We are over two years into the investigation of how the Obama–Biden FBI spied on an incoming president, and we still do not have answers. America’s national security apparatus was weaponized to take down President Trump, and the American people deserve to know how this occurred,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who is leading the effort, said in a statement.

In recent months, however, there have been scant reports about the progress of Durham’s investigation. According to an Aug. 13 report from The Wall Street Journal, Durham’s investigation is still active and is presenting evidence to a grand jury. The WSJ report cited anonymous sources.

If Durham presents evidence before a grand jury, it suggests that he’s considering more criminal charges beyond the case against former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to altering an email about former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. During the 2016 campaign, Page was placed under FBI surveillance in an operation that was later flagged in a December 2019 report (pdf) conducted by the Department of Justice’s inspector general, who found errors and omissions in how the agency operated.

The Department of Justice didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time.
 

BREAKING NEWS: John Durham indicts lawyer for Clinton-linked firm who brought Trump-Russia information to the FBI and 'lied' about working as a 'political operative'​

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2021/09/breaking-news-john-durham-indicts.html



Two years into his probe into the Russia investigation, Special Counsel John Durham has charged Michael Sussmann, a lawyer with Democratic ties, with lying when he brought information to the top lawyer at the FBI.
Durham, a US attorney who was brought on during the Trump administration and provided protections by former Attorney General Bill Barr, obtained a grand jury indictment of Sussmann, a lawyer with the major law firm of Perkins Coie.
The indictment stems from when Sussmann brought information to the FBI in the fall of 2016, when Sussmann says computer experts brought him information about a potential link between the Trump Organization and Russian Alfa Bank.
According to the indictment, Sussmann 'lied about the capacity in which he was providing the allegations to the FBI' when he met one-on-one with FBI General Counsel James Baker.
Special counsel John Durham (pictured) told the Justice Department he is seeking to indict Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann in a case questioning who Sussmann's client was when he initially expressed suspicions to the FBI about Trump's relationship with Russia in September 2016
+5
The accusation centers around a meeting Sussmann (pictured) had in Russia on September 19, 2016 with James A Baker, the FBI's top lawyer that year. At the meeting Sussmann allegedly gave the FBI data and analytics from cybersecurity researchers who thought the numbers might be evidence of hush-hush communications between Trump Organization's computer servers and Alfa Bank - a Kremlin-linked Russian financial institution
+5
Special counsel John Durham (left) told the Justice Department he is seeking to indict Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann (right) in a case questioning who Sussmann's client was when he initially expressed suspicions to the FBI about Trump's relationship with Russia in September 2016
That prompted to Baker to assume he was acting merely as a 'good citizen' rather than as a 'paid advocate or political operative.'
He stated falsely that he was not doing the work 'for my client,' according to the indictment. Sussmann had handed over three 'white papers' as well as computer files containing evidence of the reported secret channel.
At issue is whether Sussmann was truthful when he stated to Baker that he was not acting on behalf of a client. Perkins Coie also was representing Trump rival Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Marc Elias, a former lawyer with the firm, retained the company Fusion GPS, which ultimately hired ex British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who compiled the infamous dossier on Donald Trump.
The indictment notes media reports on a 'mysterious computer back channel' between the Trump Organization and Russia – at a time when Trump was already under heavy scrutiny for his favorable comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But when the FBI investigated it, the allegations did not pan out.
The indictment calls Sussmann's 'lie' a 'material' one, because it 'deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and technical analysis including the identities and motivations of Sussmann's clients.'
It states that Sussmann, a law firm, and a tech executive 'had coordinated' with 'representatives and agents of the Clinton Campaign' about the data and 'written materials that Sussmann gave to the FBI and the media.'
Sussmann represented the Democratic National Committee in connection with 'the hacking of its email servers by the Russian Government,' according to the indictment, and was 'advising the Clinton Campaign in connection with cybersecurity issues.'
The FBI found there was 'insufficient evidence' of such a back channel, and that an email server at issue was not in fact owned or operated by the Trump Organization.
There were not other people present during the Sussmann-Baker meeting that is the source of the lying charge. After the meeting, Baker met with another FBI official, whose notes on their talk said Sussmann 'said not doing this for any client.'
But the notes also said 'Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.', indicating Sussman did not shield his ties.
Lawyer Michael Sussman was indicted and charged with lying to the general counsel of the FBI about the 'capacity' in which he was sharing information about potential Trump-Russia ties
+5
Lawyer Michael Sussman was indicted and charged with lying to the general counsel of the FBI about the 'capacity' in which he was sharing information about potential Trump-Russia ties
Special Counsel John Durham brought the indictment two years after he began his probe of alleged FBI misconduct in the Russia probe
+5
Special Counsel John Durham brought the indictment two years after he began his probe of alleged FBI misconduct in the Russia probe
It says when Sussmann testified before Congress in 2017, he said he brought the allegations forward 'on behalf of my client.'
Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor, 57, who now works as a partner at the Perkins Coie, which represented the Democratic National Committee when Russia hacked its servers back in 2016.
The indictment alludes to the dossier, which included salacious and unverified allegations about Donald Trump's conduct in a a Moscow hotel room during the Miss Universe pageant in 2013, noting that 'Law Firm-1' 'retained a particular investigative Firm ... to gather information regarding Trump's purported ties to Russia.'
The indictment cites multiple times when Sussmann wrote down in internal billing records that he was working for the Clinton Campaign, although according to press reports the law firm was on retainer with the campaign.
It says a tech company executive gathered information and worked with Sussmann 'with the goal of creating a "narrative" regarding the candidates ties to Russia. It also cites internal communications of tech company staff expressing doubts about the worth of some of the digital information they were gathering at the executive's behest, with some referring to 'holes' in the argument,
Sussmann's lawyers deny the charges, which they termed 'baseless.'
'Michael Sussmann is a highly respected national security and cyber security lawyer, who served the U.S. Department of Justice during Democratic and Republican administrations alike, lawyers Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth said. Any prosecution here would be baseless, unprecedented, and an unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work. We are confident that if Mr. Sussmann is charged, he will prevail at trial and vindicate his good name.'
Earlier, Durham told the Justice Department he was seeking to indict the lawyer in a case questioning who Sussmann's client was when he initially expressed suspicions to the FBI about Trump's relationship with Russia in September 2016.
The accusation centered around a meeting Sussmann on September 19, 2016 with James A Baker, the FBI's top lawyer that year, according to people familiar with the matter. As reported by the New York Times they spoke on condition of anonymity.
At the meeting Sussmann allegedly gave the FBI data and analytics from cybersecurity researchers who thought the numbers might be evidence of hush-hush communications between Trump Organization's computer servers and Alfa Bank - a Kremlin-linked Russian financial institution.
The Times reported that the FBI concluded the researchers' concerns had no merit. The special counsel who proceeded Durham, Robert S Mueller III, ignored the matter completely in his final report.
According to The Times investigators are now examining whether Sussmann was secretly working for the Clinton campaign, although he has denied the accusations.
Durham had a deadline of this weekend to bring the accusations to light and set the investigation in motion due to a five-year statute of limitations for such cases.
Sussmann's division at Perkins Coie is separate from the firm's political law group, which represented the Democratic party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as reported by The Times.
However, an indictment is not guaranteed and on rare occasions grand juries will decline a request such as Durham's.

But Sussmann's lawyers Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth of the firm Latham & Watkins are expecting their client to be indicted, as reported by The Times, and also denied that he made any incorrect statements.
'Mr Sussmann has committed no crime,' they said.
Berkowitz and Bosworth insisted their client was representing the cybersecurity expert he mentioned to the FBI and he was not at the meeting with Baker for anything to do with the Clinton campaign.
The lawyers added: 'Any prosecution would be baseless, unprecedented and an unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work.
'We are confident that if Mr Sussmann is charged he will prevail at trial and vindicate his good name.'
Ex-President Donald Trump has long accused the democratic party and Perkins Coie of looking to find unfair suspicions about Trump's supposed ties to Russia. Trump supporters have been notoriously suspicious of Perkins Coie too
+5
Ex-President Donald Trump has long accused the democratic party and Perkins Coie of looking to find unfair suspicions about Trump's supposed ties to Russia. Trump supporters have been notoriously suspicious of Perkins Coie too
Sussmann's lawyers told the Justice Department that he originally organized the 2016 meeting because he and the cybersecurity researchers believed The New York Times was about to publish an article on the Alfa Bank data.
As reported by The Times, Sussmann wanted to give the FBI a heads-up before the paper ran the story which, in fact, they never did. The Times did, however, publish an article mentioning Alfa Bank six weeks later.
Any indictment of the former prosecutor would attract significant political attention, according to The Times, and Durham is using a grand jury to examine Sussmann's data from Alfa Bank.
He has allegedly been on the hunt for any evidence that the numbers were false or skewed but to date there has been no public sign that the data was fabricated.
And while Attorney General Merrick B Garland has the authority to overrule Durham, he did not, according to a spokesman. Garland and his spokesman declined to respond to The Times's request for comment.
The only inconsistency Durham has been able to find to date is that Baker supposedly told investigators he remembered Sussmann telling him he wasn't arranging the meeting on behalf of any client.
Then, in a deposition before Congress in 2017 Sussmann testified otherwise, saying that he sought the meeting on behalf of an unidentified client who was a cybersecurity expert and assisted in data analyzation, as reported by The Times.
Durham later suspiciously acquired internal billing records from Perkins Coie that show Sussmann logged certain hours as working on the Alfa Bank matter and billed the time to Clinton's 2016 campaign. Oddly enough, those working hours did not include the time he spent at the meeting with Baker, according to The Times.
But Sussmann's lawyers argued the billing records were misleading because their client was not charging the cybersecurity expert for work on the Alfa Bank matter. According to The Times he simply needed to show internally that he was working on something.
The Times also noted that Marc Elias, a fellow partner at Perkins Coie who served as the general counsel for the Clinton campaign, did not respond to inquiries and left the firm last month.
Elias allegedly spoke on the Alfa Bank with Sussmann. Elias and the Clinton campaign paid a monthly retainer to Perkins Coie and therefore claimed that Sussmann's logged hours did not result in any additional charges.
When Durham knuckled down on his attempts to indict Sussmann in October 2020, The Times reported that the cybersecurity researcher who originally brought the concerns to Sussmann hired a lawyer - Steven Tyrrell.
Tyrrell told The Times that his client thought Sussmann was representing him at the meeting with Baker. The lawyer didn't reveal the identity of his client for fear of harassment.
'My client is an apolitical cybersecurity expert with a history of public service who felt duty bound to share with law enforcement sensitive information provided to him by DNS (Domain Name System) experts,' Tyrrell told The Times.
He added: 'He sought legal advice from Michael Sussmann who had advised him on unrelated matters in the past and Mr Sussmann shared that information with the FBI on his behalf.
'He did not know Mr Sussmann’s law firm had a relationship with the Clinton campaign and was simply doing the right thing.'
Ex-President Donald Trump has long accused the Democratic party and Perkins Coie of looking to find unfair suspicions about Trump's supposed ties to Russia.
Trump supporters have been notoriously suspicious of Perkins Coie too, especially when Elias commissioned a research firm to look into Trump's relationship with Russia on behalf of Democrats.
According to The Times, Durham's team has stirred up more skepticism in recent months after suggesting a theory that the Clinton campaign used Perkins Coie to submit unreliable information to the FBI about Russia and Trump in efforts to hurt his 2016 campaign.
 
Last edited:

Michael Sussmann’s Indictment Also Previews the Clinton Foundation Conspiracy Against Trump​

Link: https://postnewsd2.blogspot.com/2021/09/michael-sussmanns-indictment-also.html

hillary-angry3-600x289.jpg

Several pundits have focused on almost exclusively on Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the DNC doing the bidding of Hillary Clinton, indicted for lying to the FBI and ignored the more damning revelations contained in the indictment. John Durham has his sights on Hillary Clinton’s Campaign and those who enabled this false attack on Donald Trump.
One of the biggest clues is present on page 20 of the indictment:

Michael Sussman[ n] – Atty : [Law Firm- ] not doing this for any client Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.
Michael Sussmann was not licensed to practice law in Arkansas. The Clinton Foundation was and is based in Arkansas. How can a lawyer admitted to the bar in Washington, DC and New York carry out legal affairs for a 501 C3 corporation registered in Arkansas? That is one of the questions that Sussmann will have to answer. What was he doing for the Clinton Foundation in the District of Columbia when the Clinton Foundation has no legal foundation to operate in the District of Columbia?
Sussmann also was billing his time to Fusion GPS, which, according to the indictment, was acting as an agent for the Clinton Campaign:
Indeed, and as SUSSMANN concealed and failed to disclose, ( i ) SUSSMANN had spent time drafting one of the white papers he provided to the FBI General Counsel and billed that time to the Clinton Campaign, and (ii) the U.S. Investigative Firm – which at the time was also acting as a paid agent of the Clinton Campaign – drafted another of those white papers.

This is not an extraneous issue nor is it inconsequential. Sussmann was acting as an agent for the Clinton Campaign. This means the Clinton Campaign is in the cross hairs of John Durham.
Paragraph 33 of the indictment lays out the identities of the others implicated in this conspiracy:
Further demonstrating that SUSSMANN carried out the aforementioned work on behalf of his clients, SUSSMANN continued in the weeks following this meeting to coordinate with Tech Executive- 1, Campaign Lawyer- 1, and the U.S. Investigative Firm to disseminate the Russian Bank- 1 allegations to the media SUSSMANN continued to bill his time for such work to the Clinton Campaign.
Tech Executive is alleged to be Rodney Joffe of Neustar. Others have speculated it is Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google. Regardless, the Tech Executive is now a target of the investigation and will likely be indicted. The “Campaign Lawyer” is most likely Marc Elias, formerly a partner with Perkins Coie. The fact that Elias left Perkins Coie is unusual to say the least. And the “U.S Investigative Firm” is Fusion GPS. Durham’s team has not leaked a word about the legal status of these three entities. But based on Durham’s previous investigations of FBI corruption connected to the Whitey Bulger case, it is highly unlikely that he is ignoring their role in enabling this conspiracy.
The members of the Clinton Campaign staff implicated in this conspiracy are identified in paragraph 25e of the indictment:

On or about September 15, 2016, Campaign Lawyer-1 exchanged emails with the Clinton Campaign’s campaign manager, communications director, and foreign policy advisor concerning the Russian Bank- 1 allegations that SUSSMANN had recently shared with Reporter.
Robby Mook was Hillary’s campaign manager. Jennifer Palmieri was Hillary’s communications director. And Jake Sullivan was Hillary’s foreign policy advisor. We do not know if any of these three have been interviewed by Durham’s team. It would be shocking if they have been left alone. They are fact witnesses, at a minimum, to Sussmann’s alleged prevarications.
Finally, there is the CIA. While Durham’s indictment of Sussmann does not specifically identify the CIA, the language of the indictment points to my former employer:
In or about late 2016 and early 2017 Tech Executive- Originator- 1, and Researcher-2 continued to compile additional information and data regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations, and gathered other purported data allegedly involving Trump- related computer networks and Russia (collectively , the “Updated Allegations ”). SUSSMANN would later convey these allegations to another U.S. government agency ( Agency – 2 ). doing so, and as alleged below, SUSSMANN repeated, in substance, the same false statement he had made to the FBI General Counsel that he was not acting on behalf of a client. . . .

On or about February 9 , 2017, SUSSMANN met with two Agency-2 employees (“ Employee-1” and “Employee-2 ) at a location outside the District of Columbia. At the meeting, the following , in substance and in part, occurred:
a. SUSSMANN stated falsely – as he previously had stated to the FBI General Counsel that he was “ not representing a particular client.” In truth and in fact, and as SUSSMAN had acknowledged to the Former Employee just days earlier, SUSSMANN was representing a client
b SUSSMANN disclosed that Law Firm- was active in representing several Democratic Party causes and officer-holders, including both the DNC and Hillary Clinton. SUSSMANN stated, however, that such work was unrelated to his reasons for contacting Agency . . . .
After the meeting with SUSSMANN, Employee- 1 and Employee- 2 drafted and revised a Memorandum for the Record that reflected the above- described statements by SUSSMANN.

Durham would not have included this information in the indictment if his team had not already interviewed the CIA employees and obtained the documentary evidence. My point in reviewing the details contained in the indictment is to emphasize that Durham and his team are not just looking at pursuing the lying charge against Sussmann. Something bigger is at play.
And for you skeptics (and you are fully justified to be skeptical), I hope to prove you wrong. However, if this turns out to be another failed attempt by Charlie Brown to kick the football, I will apologize for raising your hopes. Please understand this–I share your desire to see genuine justice done against those responsible for the coup attempt against Donald Trump.
 

Durham indictment of lawyer who worked for Clinton-friendly firm proves again how corrupt “mainstream media” really is​

Link: https://www.cracknewz.com/2021/09/durham-indictment-of-lawyer-who-worked.html

The American media is suffering its lowest approval ratings in the history of our republic, but it is a loss of confidence that was earned and well-deserved, as this story proves once again.
Last week, special counsel John Durham, whom most Americans had forgotten about because his investigation into the origins of the “Russian collusion” hoax — which began early in 2020 — had not produced any results, finally indicted someone: Michael Sussman, a former federal prosecutor who worked, at the time, for the law firm Perkins Coie.
That firm is responsible for funneling money from the 2016 Clinton campaign to former MI6 spook Christopher Steele, who came up with the infamous ‘Russia dossier’ on the Trump campaign, a fake document containing a plethora of phony claims.
But it was another aspect of Durham’s indictment that caught the attention of Georgetown constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, namely that there is a mainstream media connection to all of this.

“The indictment fills in a great number of gaps on one of the Russian collusion allegations pushed by the Clinton campaign: Alpha bank. Sussman and others reportedly pushed the implausible claim that the Russian bank served as a conduit for communications between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. The indictment removes the identity of key actors like a ‘Tech Executive’ who used his connections with an Internet company to help the Clinton campaign (and said he was promised a top cyber security position in the widely anticipated Clinton Administration),” Turley wrote on his website last week.
“One of those figures however may have been identified: ‘Reporter-2.’ Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer wrote an article for Slate that seems to track the account of the indictment and, as such, raises questions over his role as a conduit for the Clinton campaign’s effort to spread the false story,” Turley added.

We already know that the mainstream media, which is in the pocket of the deep state and the Democrat Party it serves, was a “conduit” for a number of false stories regarding then-GOP nominee Donald Trump and his campaign, as well as President Trump and his administration. The Russian collusion lie was just the first, though it was perpetuated to the point where it was used as justification to launch a special counsel probe against Trump. (Not unheard of: Bill Clinton’s regime was dogged by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for years, but his probe was based on a legitimate instance of lawbreaking; Clinton was ultimately impeached — Trump’s entire probe was based on a hoax.)
But as Turley suggests, Durham’s indictment of Sussman paints the media not as unsuspecting dupes publishing information provided by ‘intelligence sources’ on good faith but rather as willing participants to the hoaxes.
“The indictment discusses how Fusion GPS pushed for the publication of the story, telling Foer that it was ‘time to hurry’ on the story,” Turley writes, quoting the passage:

The Investigative Firm Employee’s email stated, ‘time to hurry’ suggesting that Reporter-2 should hurry to publish an article regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In response, Reporter-2 emailed to the Investigative Firm Employee a draft article regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations, along with the cover message: ‘Here’s the first 2500 words.’
In other words, the reporter was colluding with a law firm — sending his story to them rather than clearing it with editors, meaning that editors for his publication either didn’t know that was taking place or did, and had no issue with it.
Foer explained his dishonesty as though he was doing the country a favor (even though his information was BS).
“Every article is an exercise in cost-benefit analysis; each act of publication entails a risk of getting it wrong, and sometimes events force journalists to assume greater risk than they would in other circumstances. Before I published the server story, I asked myself a fairly corny question: How would I sleep the next week if Donald Trump were elected president, knowing that I had sat on a potentially important piece of information? In the end, Trump was elected president, and I still slept badly,” he said.

Turley, the professor, explained why that is unethical nonsense.
“The cost behind this article is getting it wrong but relying too greatly on a biased source without independent research,” he wrote.
“In this case, Foer allegedly coordinated with investigators paid by the Clinton campaign to publish a story that had little or no basis. Even the researchers quoted in the indictment objected that the theory was unsupported and could bring public ridicule. Yet, the campaign continued to push the story and Foer ran it after allegedly sending an advance copy of his article to Fusion,” Turley said.
Like our government and most of academia, our media institution is broken and corrupt, too.
 

Biden Security Advisor Jake Sullivan Tied to 2016 Clinton Scheme to Co-Opt the CIA and FBI to Tar Trump​

02:37

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2021/10/biden-security-advisor-jake-sullivan.html


IMG_4153.jpg
Jake Sullivan
By Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations:
White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan figures prominently in a grand jury investigation run by Special Counsel John Durham into an alleged 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign scheme to use both the FBI and CIA to tar Donald Trump as a colluder with Russia, according to people familiar with the criminal probe, which they say has broadened into a conspiracy case.

Sullivan is facing scrutiny, sources say, over potentially false statements he made about his involvement in the effort, which continued after the election and into 2017. As a senior foreign policy adviser to Clinton, Sullivan spearheaded what was known inside her campaign as a “confidential project” to link Trump to the Kremlin through dubious email-server records provided to the agencies, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Last week, Michael A. Sussmann, a partner in Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of making false statements to the FBI about his clients and their motives behind planting the rumor, at the highest levels of the FBI, of a secret Trump-Russia server. After a months-long investigation, the FBI found no merit to the rumor.
The grand jury indicated in its lengthy indictment that several people were involved in the alleged conspiracy to mislead the FBI and trigger an investigation of the Republican presidential candidate — including Sullivan, who was described by his campaign position but not identified by name.
The Clinton campaign project, these sources say, also involved compiling a “digital dossier” on several Trump campaign officials – including Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page. This effort exploited highly sensitive, nonpublic Internet data related to their personal email communications and web-browsing, known as Internet Protocol, or IP, addresses.

To mine the data, the Clinton campaign enlisted a team of Beltway computer contractors as well as university researchers with security clearance who often collaborate with the FBI and the intelligence community. They worked from a five-page campaign document called the “Trump Associates List.”
The tech group also pulled logs purportedly from servers for a Russian bank and Trump Tower, and the campaign provided the data to the FBI on two thumb drives, along with three “white papers” that claimed the data indicated the Trump campaign was secretly communicating with Moscow through a server in Trump Tower and the Alfa Bank in Russia. Based on the material, the FBI opened at least one investigation, adding to several others it had already initiated targeting the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016.
The indictment states that Sussmann, as well as the cyber experts recruited for the operation, “coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton campaign with regard to the data and written materials that Sussmann gave to the FBI and the media.”
One of those campaign agents was Sullivan, according to emails Durham obtained. On Sept. 15, 2016 – just four days before Sussmann handed off the materials to the FBI – Marc Elias, his law partner and fellow Democratic Party operative, “exchanged emails with the Clinton campaign’s foreign policy adviser concerning the Russian bank allegations,” as well as with other top campaign officials, the indictment states.
The sources close to the case confirmed the “foreign policy adviser” referenced by title is Sullivan. They say he was briefed on the development of the opposition-research materials tying Trump to Alfa Bank, and was aware of the participants in the project. These included the Washington opposition-research group Fusion GPS, which worked for the Clinton campaign as a paid agent and helped gather dirt on Alfa Bank and draft the materials Elias discussed with Sullivan, the materials Sussmann would later submit to the FBI. Fusion researchers were in regular contact with both Sussmann and Elias about the project in the summer and fall of 2016. Sullivan also personally met with Elias, who briefed him on Fusion’s opposition research, according to the sources.

Sullivan maintained in congressional testimony in December 2017 that he didn’t know of Fusion’s involvement in the Alfa Bank opposition research. In the same closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, he also denied knowing anything about Fusion in 2016 or who was conducting the opposition research for the campaign.
“Marc [Elias] … would occasionally give us updates on the opposition research they were conducting, but I didn’t know what the nature of that effort was – inside effort, outside effort, who was funding it, who was doing it, anything like that,” Sullivan stated under oath.
Sullivan also testified he didn’t know that Perkins Coie, the law firm where Elias and Sussmann were partners, was working for the Clinton campaign until October 2017, when it was reported in the media as part of stories revealing the campaign’s contract with Fusion, which also produced the so-called Steele dossier. Sullivan maintained he didn’t even know that the politically prominent Elias worked for Perkins Coie, a well-known Democratic law firm. Major media stories from 2016 routinely identified Elias as “general counsel for the Clinton campaign” and a “partner at Perkins Coie.”
“To be honest with you, Marc wears a tremendous number of hats, so I wasn’t sure who he was representing,” Sullivan testified. “I sort of thought he was, you know, just talking to us as, you know, a fellow traveler in this — in this campaign effort.”

Although he acknowledged knowing Elias and his partner were marshaling opposition researchers for a campaign project targeting Trump, Sullivan insisted, “They didn’t do something with it.” In truth, they used the research to instigate a full-blown investigation at the FBI and seed a number of stories in the Washington media, which Elias discussed in emails.
Lying to Congress is a felony. Though the offense is rarely prosecuted, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller won convictions of two of Trump’s associates on charges of that very offense.
An attorney for Sullivan did not respond to questions, while a spokeswoman for the National Security Council declined comment. After the 2016 election, Sullivan continued to participate in the anti-Trump effort, which enlisted no fewer than three Internet companies and two university computer researchers, who persisted in exploiting nonpublic Internet data to conjure up “derogatory information on Trump” and his associates, according to the indictment.
Prosecutors say the operation ran through at least February 2017, when Sullivan met with another central figure in the plot to plant the anti-Trump smear at the FBI. But now the goal was to compel agents to continue investigating the false rumors in the wake of the election, thereby keeping Trump’s presidency under an ethical cloud.

On Feb. 10, 2017, Sullivan huddled with two Fusion operatives and their partner Daniel Jones, a former FBI analyst and Democratic staffer on the Hill, to hatch the post-election plan to resurrect rumors Trump was a tool of the Kremlin. As RealClearInvestigations first reported, the meeting, which lasted about an hour and took place in a Washington office building, also included former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The group discussed raising money to finance a multimillion-dollar opposition research project headed by Jones to target the new president. In effect, Jones’ operation would replace the Clinton campaign’s operation, continuing the effort to undermine Trump.
It’s not clear if Sussmann attended the Feb. 10 meeting, but he was apparently still involved in the operation, along with his crew of data miners. The day before the meeting attended by Sullivan, Sussmann paid a visit to the CIA’s Langley headquarters to peddle the disinformation about the secret server – this time to top officials there, according to the sources familiar with Durham’s investigation. During a roughly 90-minute meeting, Sussmann provided two officials at the intelligence headquarters “updated” documents and data he’d provided the FBI before the election, RealClearInvestigations has learned exclusively.
Then, on March 28, 2017, Jones met with the FBI to pass on supposedly fresh leads he and the cyber researchers had learned about the Alfa Bank server and Trump, and the FBI looked into the new leads after having closed its investigation a month earlier. That same month, FBI Director James Comey publicly announced the bureau was investigating possible “coordination” between Moscow and the newly sworn-in president’s campaign.

Despite the renewed push by Jones, the FBI debunked the tip of a nefarious Russian back channel. Agents learned the email server in question wasn’t even controlled by the Trump Organization. “It wasn’t true,” Mueller confirmed in 2019 testimony.
It turns out that the supposed “secret server” was housed in the small Pennsylvania town of Lititz, and not Trump Tower in New York City, and it was operated by a marketing firm based in Florida called Cendyn that routinely blasts out emails promoting multiple hotel chains. Simply put, the third-party server sent spam to Alfa Bank employees who used Trump hotels. The bank had maintained a New York office since 2001.
“The FBI’s investigation revealed that the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization but, rather, had been administrated by a mass-marketing email company that sent advertisements for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients,” Durham wrote in his indictment.
Nonetheless, Jones and Sullivan kept promoting the canard as true.

With help from Sullivan and Podesta in 2017, Jones launched a nonprofit group called The Democracy Integrity Project, which raised some $7 million mainly from Silicon Valley tech executives. TDIP hired computer researchers, as well as Fusion opposition researchers and Christopher Steele, the British author of the now-discredited Steele dossier, to “prove” the rumors in the dossier. As they sought new dirt on Trump, they fed their information to media outlets, leading Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee (namely Sens. Mark Warner and Ron Wyden), and the FBI. Jones previously worked on the Senate intelligence panel, which had launched a major investigation of Trump and Russia, and he provided a pipeline of information for the committee, according to the sources.
As RCI first reported, Jones emailed a daily news bulletin known as “TDIP Research” to prominent Beltway journalists to keep the Trump-Russia “collusion” rumor-mill going, including the debunked rumor about the “secret server.” Durham has subpoenaed Jones to testify before his grand jury hearing the case, along with computer experts and researchers recruited by Sussmann for the Clinton campaign project, persons close to the investigation said. Attempts to reach Jones for comment were unsuccessful.
In a statement, Durham said his investigation “is ongoing.”
Indictments for a single-count process crime such as making a false statement normally run a page or two. But Durham’s filing charging Sussmann spans 27 pages and is packed with detail. FBI veterans say the 40-year prosecutor used the indictment to outline a broader conspiracy case he’s building that invokes several other federal statutes.

“That is what we call a ‘speaking indictment,’ meaning it is far more detailed than is required for a simple indictment under [federal statute] 1001,” which outlaws making false statements and representations to federal investigators, former assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said in an interview with RealClearInvestigations.
“It is damning,” he added. “And I see it as a placeholder for additional indictments, such as government grant and contract fraud, computer intrusion, the Privacy Act and other laws against dissemination of personally identifiable information, and mail fraud and wire fraud – not to mention conspiracy to commit those offenses.”
“I definitely see more [indictments] to come,” emphasized Swecker, who knows Durham personally and worked with him on prior investigations. The sources close to the case said former FBI general counsel James Baker, who accepted the sketchy materials from Sussmann and passed them on to agents for investigation, is cooperating with Durham’s investigation, along with former FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap, who has provided prosecutors contemporaneous notes about what led the bureau to open an investigation into the allegations Trump used Alfa Bank as a conduit between his campaign and Russian President Vladimir Putin to steal the election.
According to the sources, Durham also has found evidence Sussmann misled the CIA, another front in the scandal being reported here for the first time. In December 2016, the sources say Sussmann phoned the general counsel at the agency and told her the same story about the supposed secret server – at the same time the CIA was compiling a national intelligence report that accused Putin of meddling in the election to help Trump win.

Sussmann told Caroline Krass, then the agency’s top attorney, that he had information that may help her with a review President Obama had ordered of all intelligence related to the election and Russia, known as the Intelligence Community Assessment. The review ended up including an annex with several unfounded and since-debunked allegations against Trump developed by the Clinton campaign.
It’s not clear if the two-page annex, which claimed the allegations were “consistent with the judgments in this assessment,” included the Alfa Bank canard. Before it was made public, several sections had been redacted. But after Sussmann conveyed the information to Krass, an Obama appointee, she told him she would consider it for the intelligence review of Russian interference, which tracks with Sussmann’s 2017 closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. (Krass’ name is blacked out in the declassified transcript, but sources familiar with Sussmann’s testimony confirmed that he identified her as his CIA contact.)
“We’re interested,” said Krass, who left the agency several months later. “We’re doing this review and I’ll speak to someone here.”
It’s not known if Sussmann failed to inform the top CIA lawyer that he was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, as he’s alleged to have done at the FBI. Attempts to reach Krass, who now serves as Biden’s top lawyer at the Pentagon, were unsuccessful.

But in his return trip to the CIA after the election, Sussmann “stated falsely – as he previously had stated to the FBI general counsel – that he was ‘not representing a particular client,’ ” according to the Durham indictment, which cites a contemporaneous memo drafted by two agency officials with whom Sussmann met that memorializes their meeting. (The document refers to the CIA by the pseudonym “Agency-2.” Sources confirm Agency-2 is the CIA.)
Remarkably, the CIA did not ask for the source of Sussmann’s walk-in tip, including where he got several data files he gave the agency. The FBI exhibited a similar lack of curiosity when Sussmann told it about the false Trump/Alfa Bank connection.
Attempts to reach Sussmann to get his side to the additional CIA allegations leveled by Durham were unsuccessful. The 57-year-old attorney pleaded not guilty to a single felony count and was released on a $100,000 bond Friday. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison.
The prominent Washington lawyer quietly resigned from Perkins Coie, which has scrubbed all references to him from its website. And late last month, as rumors of the indictment swirled, the powerhouse law firm divested its entire Political Law Group formerly headed by Marc Elias – who commissioned the Steele dossier. Elias, who worked closely with Sussmann on the Trump-Alfa Bank project, also is no longer employed by the firm.

Jake Sullivan’s Golf Cart Rounds
In late July 2016, during the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the CIA picked up Russian chatter about a Clinton foreign policy adviser who was trying to develop allegations to “vilify” Trump. The intercepts said Clinton herself had approved a “plan” to “stir up a scandal” against Trump by tying him to Putin. According to hand-written notes, then-CIA chief John Brennan warned President Obama that Moscow had intercepted information about the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016, of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump.” That summer, Brennan had personally briefed Democrats, including then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on the Alfa Bank-Trump server rumors, according to congressional reports. Reid fired off a letter to Comey demanding that the FBI do more to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia.
During that convention, Sullivan drove a golf cart from one TV-network news tent in the parking lot to another, pitching producers and anchors a story that Trump was conspiring with Putin to steal the election. CNN, ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, as well as Chris Wallace of Fox News, all gave him airtime to spin the Clinton campaign’s unfounded theories. Sullivan also gave off-camera background briefings to reporters.
“We were on a mission,” Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri later admitted in a Washington Post column. “We wanted to raise the alarm.”

Then, on the eve of the election, Sullivan claimed in a written campaign statement that Trump and the Russians had set up a “secret hotline” through Alfa Bank, and he suggested “federal authorities” were investigating “this direct connection between Trump and Russia.” He portrayed the shocking discovery as the work of independent experts — “computer scientists” — without disclosing their attachment to the campaign.
“This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow,” Sullivan claimed.
Clinton teed up his statement in an Oct. 31, 2016, tweet, which quickly went viral. Also that day, Clinton tweeted, “It’s time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia,” while attaching a meme that read: “Donald Trump has a secret server. It was set up to communicate privately with a Putin-tied Russian bank called Alfa Bank.”

It’s not immediately apparent if then-Vice President Joe Biden was briefed about the Alfa Bank tale or other Trump-Russia rumors and investigations.
Biden has never been questioned about his own role in the investigation of Trump. However, it was the former vice president who introduced the idea of prosecuting Trump’s national security adviser appointee, Gen. Flynn, under the Logan Act of 1799, a dead-letter statute that prohibits private citizens from interfering in U.S. foreign policy and which hasn’t been used to prosecute anyone in modern times. According to notes taken by then-FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok, who attended a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting with Obama and Biden, in which Trump, Flynn and Russia were discussed, Biden raised the idea: “VP: Logan Act,” the notes read.
Sullivan has argued in congressional testimony and elsewhere that Flynn violated the Logan Act, raising suspicions he may have put the idea in Biden’s head. Sullivan had advised the vice president before joining the Clinton campaign.
 

Russia Hoax Reckoning: John Durham Has Found the First Evidence of ‘Collusion’ Confirmed: It Was Hillary All Along!​


Link: https://www.cracknewz.com/2021/10/tennessee-fans-throw-trash-at-ole-miss.html

Special Counsel John Durham’s indictment Thursday of “dossier” source Igor Danchenko revealed the first real evidence of “Russia collusion” — and it was linked to Hillary Clinton’s associates, not to Donald Trump or his presidential campaign.
Danchenko, a Russian-born, U.S.-based researcher, had worked from 2005-2010 at the Brookings Institution with Strobe Talbott, a former official from Bill Clinton’s State Department.
He later became the main “Russian” source for former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the fraudulent “Russia dossier” on Donald Trump on behalf of opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was secretly being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
The “dossier” was fed to the FBI and the press, and was used in FISA surveillance warrants on (innocent) Trump aide Carter Page. Through Page’s communications, the Clinton-friendly Obama administration had visibility into Trump’s campaign.
That much was known before Thursday. But the indictment revealed even more.
A figure identified as “PR Executive-1,” and later confirmed to be communications consultant (and Clinton apparatchik) Charles Dolan Jr., was working with Danchenko.
Dolan had the kind of Russian contacts that Trump’s enemies searched for, in vain, when they persecuted the 45th president. Had Special Counsel Robert Mueller found anything like these contacts near Trump, the hoax would have been vindicated.
The indictment notes that Dolan “spent much of his career interacting with Eurasian clients with a particular focus on Russia.” He had even handled “global public relations for the Russian government and a state-owned energy company.”
It gets worse.
Dolan had relationships with “senior Russian Federation leadership,” including Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary and his staff. He also was friendly with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and his deputies.
Dolan attended meetings at the Russian embassy in Washington, DC. He arranged meetings in Moscow at which Danchenko met with Russian officials and “sub-sources” who gave him information that later ended up in Steele’s sensational dossier.
Durham’s indictment filing tells the story of the infamous “pee tape” allegation, in which Trump was alleged to have hired prostitutes to urinate on a bed where President Barack Obama was to have slept during a visit to a Moscow hotel. In June 2016, the indictment alleges, Dolan and another associate, identified as “Organizer-1,” stayed at the same hotel, and were given a guided tour by the management.
Durham told the court: “According to Organizer-1, during the aforementioned tour of the Presidential Suite, a Moscow Hotel staff member told the participants, including PR Executive-1, that Trump had stayed in the Presidential Suite. According to both Organizer-1 and PR Executive-1, the staff member did not mention any sexual or salacious activity.”
The entire story of the prostitutes was therefore a fabrication — and Danchenko is now being charged for lying to the FBI about whether Dolan was a source for “Trump’s stay and alleged activity in the Moscow hotel.”
In October 2016, Dolan and Danchenko attended a conference in Moscow with “several Russian government officials.” The conference included meetings in the Kremlin itself.
Though the Clinton campaign supposedly did not know about Dolan’s activities (according to Dolan), one important “sub-source” believed that Dolan was an “advisor” to Hillary Clinton, whom he hoped would win. He expected to be taken to the State Department in the event that Hillary Clinton defeated Trump.
Whether Dolan was acting on the campaign’s instructions or not, Danchenko was providing information to Steele, whose research was being funded by the campaign. And Dolan was making sure Danchenko had information Steele could use.
Dolan’s contacts with Russia went much further than a random meeting at Trump Tower — an arm’s-length contact that once fueled establishment media conspiracy theories.
Dolan was in direct contact with officials close to Vladimir Putin himself.
And at least some of his sources made clear that they wanted Hillary Clinton to win. One even asked for her autograph.
This was “Russia collusion” of the highest order, reinforcing the possibility that the Steele dossier was itself Russian disinformation.
The irony of it all is that Danchenko and Dolan were manufacturing evidence of Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia, while colluding with Russia themselves.
And it looks like Durham’s indictment is just the tip of the Arctic iceberg.
Trump-haters greeted every “Russia collusion” leak by declaring “the walls are closing in” or that it was “worse than Watergate.”
Well, now the walls really are closing in — on the Clintons’ world. And this really was worse than Watergate.
 
Here's latest discussion on the Trump dossier now exposing hitlery--and also everyone else, like the Jews-media and globalists (including the financiers, like Soros, behind it all).

 

Durham: Perkins Coie Allies Connected to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Spied on Trump’s Internet Traffic While Trump Was President​

STATION GOSSIP 07:36

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2022/02/durham-perkins-coie-allies-connected-to.html

A new filing from Special Counsel John Durham reveals Perkins Coie allies connected to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign spied on Trump’s ...​

Putin 'doesn't give a s**t about sanctions' and 'the more the West pushes him, the stronger his response will be', says Russian ambassador to Sweden as US staff begin withdrawing from eastern Ukraine amid warning of 'imminent' invasionFlorida girl who was infamously arrested and handcuffed by cops at age six has been diagnosed with PTSD three years on: State now has more police in its schools than nurses following Parkland massacre

durham-investigation.jpg

A new filing from Special Counsel John Durham reveals Perkins Coie allies connected to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign spied on Trump’s internet traffic – WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT.
As previously reported, Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was indicted last September for lying to the FBI.
According to the indictment, Sussmann falsely told James Baker he wasn’t doing work “for any client” when he asked for a meeting with the FBI where he presented bogus evidence the Trump Tower was secretly communicating with Kremlin-tied Alfa Bank.
A “tech executive,” who retained Sussmann as his lawyer, was referenced as “Tech Executive-1” in Sussmann’s indictment and was eventually identified as Rodney Joffe.
To this day, Rodney Joffe has not been indicted, however Friday’s filing from Durham sheds new light on Joffe’s spying on the Executive Office of the President.
Via Techno Fog’s SubStack: According to Durham, Joffe and his associates exploited internet data from “the Executive Office of the President of the United States” to further their own political agenda. They had come to possess this data as part of a “sensitive arrangement” with the U.S. government. As Durham explains:

More from Techno Fog on Durham’s new filing:
We previously discussed how Rodney Joffe (identified as Tech Executive-1 in the Sussmann indictment and in the latest filing discussing the conflict) exploited proprietary – and perhaps classified – data provided by DARPA to further their own political attacks, and how that might result in charges. It was later confirmed that two former DARPA employees have given grand jury testimony, so it appears Durham is following this track.
I provide that background because of what we just learned. Durham also divulged, to an extent, that contractors and tech experts (meaning Joffe and his cohorts) – those same people involved in the Alfa Bank hoax – essentially spied on President Trump.
Joffe and his associates manipulated this information to further a conspiracy theory that Trump and those in Trump’s orbit were continuing their secret backchannels with the Russians. This was repackaged with the Alfa Bank hoax and given to Sussmann, who then laundered it to the CIA on February 9, 2017. Sussmann alleged to the CIA that the data showed “that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Durham “identified no support for these allegations.”
One can’t help ask why Joffe (via Sussmann) risked legal exposure to continue to push false Trump-Russia allegations before and after the 2016 election. First to the FBI in 2016 then to the CIA in 2017. It seems that Joffe was desperate, and his desperation only increased after Trump’s election.
The source of Joffe’s desperation? It’s speculation at this point, but perhaps it goes to the origins of the purported Russia/DNC hack. To revise a previous question we have asked:
What if Crowdstrike was a patsy, there to unknowingly reach false conclusions of a “Russian hack” based on fraudulent information provided to them by Rodney Joffe and Perkins Coie and the DNC/Hillary Campaign?
Attorney Techno Fog said the spying wasn’t limited to the Executive Office of the President.
They also exploited data from Trump Tower, another Trump building, and a “healthcare provider.”
 
Here's more commentary fm FOX NEWS on the hitlery conspiracy, for which she's caught (finally) red-handed--I'd like to see her get out of this

 
Last edited:

BREAKING: Durham Probe Accelerates – More People Cooperating and Coming Before Grand Jury — Bill Priestap, James Baker and Dirty Marc Elias Mentioned​

STATION GOSSIP 09:20

Link: http://www.stationgossip.com/2022/02/breaking-durham-probe-accelerates-more.html

A new court filing from Special Counsel John Durham from this past weekend revealed Perkins Coie allies connected to Hillary Clint...​

Biden Spox Repeatedly Dodges Questions About Durham Filing Revealing Hillary Clinton Paid Tech Team to Spy on Trump’s Internet Traffic (VIDEO)Jill Biden Displays Tacky Valentine’s Day Decorations on White House Lawn (VIDEO)
A new court filing from Special Counsel John Durham from this past weekend revealed Perkins Coie allies connected to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign spied on Trump’s internet traffic – WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. According to Durham, tech expert Donald Joffe and his associates exploited internet data from “the Executive Office of the President of the United States” to further their own political agenda. Durham investigators uncovered evidence that shows Hillary Clinton’s team paid operatives to “infiltrate” the Trump Tower and then President Trump’s White House servers to link Trump to Russia.
On Monday FOX News reported that more people are cooperating and coming before the grand jury in the Durham probe. According to FOX News, Former FBI General Counsel James Baker, FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign, creepy Marc Elias, have already been called before the Durham Grand Jury.
FOX News reported:
Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation has “accelerated,” and more people are “cooperating” and coming before the federal grand jury than has previously been reported, a source familiar with the probe told Fox News.
The source told Fox News Monday that Durham has run his investigation “very professionally,” and, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, his activities, and witness information and cooperation status are rarely, if ever, leaked.
“Durham does this right and keeps it a secret,” the source said, adding that there has been “much more activity” in Durham’s investigation “than has been visible to the public.”
The closest look Durham has given with regard to grand jury witnesses came in a federal court filing last month, outlining materials that had been provided by the special counsel’s office to defense attorneys for former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.
Sussmann has been charged making a false statement to a federal agent. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty…
…Durham lists a number of individuals, including “the above-referenced former FBI General Counsel,” which could be a reference to James Baker, who served as FBI general counsel from January 2014 until May 2018. Fox News reported in October that Durham had plans to call Baker to testify in the case against Sussmann.
The indictment against Sussmann, says he told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work “for any client” when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin…
…Durham also provided grand jury testimony from “the above-referenced former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence.” It is unclear to which official Durham is referring, but the title could be a reference to Bill Priestap, who served as the FBI’s assistant director for counterintelligence from 2015 to 2018…

…Durham, in the filing, also lists testimony from “the attorney previously employed by Law Firm-1 who is referred to in the Indictment as ‘Campaign Lawyer-1.’” It is unclear to whom Durham is referring.
However, in a separate Durham filing on Feb. 11, the special counsel states that “Campaign Lawyer-1” was “serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign.” Three sources told Fox News that individual is Marc Elias, who served as general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, and worked at the law firm Perkins Coie.
 
Here's latest commentary on the hitlery attempts to frame and defame Trump, calling him "collaborator" w. Putin, Russkies who then corrupted the 2016 election.

 
Back
Top