Kimstu
January 27, 2023, 7:48pm
482
It’s kinda funny to read ShadowFacts ’s linked article in tandem with the OP’s various assertions in this thread. Bonus points for switching to “Narrator Voice:” to read the article clips in.
This week the Durham investigation into the roots of the Russia/Trump collusion story laid down a second indictment, this time against a lawyer for Perkins-Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton.
Remember the supposed ‘hidden server’ at Alfa Bank that was supposedly connected to a Trump server for the purposes of passing information? The story was a lie concocted by the Hillary campaign, and a lawyer for the firm that represented her has just been indicted for lying to the FBI. He gave them the manufactured Alfa Bank material, claiming that he was bringing it to them as a ‘concerned citizen’ and not as an agent for anyone.
Late in the summer of 2021, Mr. Durham prepared to indict Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer who had represented Democrats in their dealings with the F.B.I. about Russia’s hacking of their emails. Two prosecutors on Mr. Durham’s team — Anthony Scarpelli and Neeraj N. Patel — objected, according to people familiar with the matter. […]
Mr. Durham accused Mr. Sussmann of lying to an F.B.I. official by saying he was not conveying the tip for a client; the prosecutor maintained Mr. Sussmann was there in part for the Clinton campaign.
Mr. Scarpelli and Mr. Patel argued to Mr. Durham that the evidence was too thin to charge Mr. Sussmann and that such a case would not normally be prosecuted, people familiar with the matter said. Given the intense scrutiny it would receive, they also warned that an acquittal would undermine public faith in their investigation and federal law enforcement. […]
The charge against Mr. Sussmann was narrow, but the Durham team used it to make public large amounts of information insinuating what Mr. Durham never charged: that Clinton campaign associates conspired to gin up an F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Trump based on a knowingly false allegation.
Trial testimony, however, showed that while Mrs. Clinton and her campaign manager hoped Mr. Sussmann would persuade reporters to write articles about Alfa Bank, they did not want him to take the information to the F.B.I. And prosecutors presented no evidence that he or campaign officials had believed the data scientists’ complex theory was false.
After Mr. Sussmann’s acquittal , Mr. Barr, by then out of office for more than a year, suggested that using the courts to advance a politically charged narrative was a goal in itself.
Main Steele Dossier Researcher Arrested in Durham Probe: […]
So, the Democrats hired a foreign spy, who in turn hired a suspected Russian agent to collect dirt on a Presidential candidate using contacts in the Kremlin.
Mr. Durham “accomplished something far more important” than a conviction,Mr. Barr told Fox News […]
And he predicted that a subsequent trial, concerning a Russia analyst who was a researcher for the Steele dossier, would also “get the story out” and “further amplify these themes and the role the F.B.I. leadership played in this, which is increasingly looking fishy and inexplicable.”
John Ratcliff was the Director of National Intelligence when the Durham investigation started, and he was responsible for providing both classified and unclassified material to the Durham investigation.
He said that Durham’s indictments so far are just the beginning. Durham has access to the classified information we don’t, and Ratcliff says the stuff in there is absolutely explosive and he expects ‘many’ indictments to come out of it, including indictments of people at the ‘highest levels’ of government.
Here’s the Danchenko indictment: […]
That case involved Igor Danchenko, who had told the F.B.I. that the dossier exaggerated the credibility of gossip and speculation. Mr. Durham charged him with lying about two sources. He was acquitted , too.
Btw, I’m impressed with how several posters in this thread tracked the key legal analyses as the events were unfolding in real time. If I had read everything posted or linked in this thread carefully enough and had the legal background to understand it, I could practically have written that NYT article myself. [hat tip]
