Durham: Clinton Campaign Fed Mainstream Media 'Unverified Derogatory' Information About Trump

And they never explained why she would have just guessed at it, what information was given to her that said he was from Kenya that she used to type the copy. And I have had several instances where I was featured in some literature with a brief bio and YOU APPROVE THE COPY before they publish. This is a PUBLISHING HOUSE. You sign off on it. And then for Obama to claim that his FIRST write up as an author in which he would be featured along with some of the biggest writers in the country and oh well he just never had time to read the copies that would have been sent to him, never wanted to make sure he had several for his own records and future history. NAW he'd never be concerned with that..............................do you see how incredulous that seems? I believe he was born in Hawaii. But I also believe he may have made it appear otherwise to gain some advantage as in an acceptance at Harvard and advancement of his career and it came back to bite him. But he can't admit so they come up with this stuff.

 

It was stunning and displayed the sham that was his investigation. They knew early on the whole Russia hoax was a scam, just made up bought and paid for Clinton/DNC dirty tricks. Hillary Clinton at anytime could have come out and stated the entire Mueller investigation was based on HER bought and paid for propaganda, it is based on a hoax and ended it and saved the country the tearing apart it cause and still does. That is how despicable is this woman, I sincerely hope they can take this to the top and with criminal charges.

 

They began selection today.

Well Durham is going to call employees, attorney's of Perkins-Coie to testify about what happened. They are going to claim attorney client privilege because they were representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Oops Sussman told the FBI he was not representing anyone but acting as a private citizen. So their mere claiming the attorney client privilege is evidence against Sussman. Will be interesting to see how each side plays that out.

 

It is an interesting TRAP that Durham walked them into.

 

Totally...
Most likely necessitating a New Wing at Supermax and Several Federal Capital Cases that will end up in a Assembly Line to the Gurney...

 

You don't see this

"Well Durham is going to call employees, attorney's of Perkins-Coie to testify about what happened. They are going to claim attorney client privilege because they were representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Oops Sussman told the FBI he was not representing anyone but acting as a private citizen. So their mere claiming the attorney client privilege is evidence against Sussman. Will be interesting to see how each side plays that out."

coming at trial?

You might want to read this entire article, I urge all those who believe this a nothingburger, but I'll cite just this little bit.

"Subpoenaed Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago is likely to stay mum during questioning at the criminal trial of Michael Sussmann that starts this week. Her silence will be yet further evidence that the Hillary Clinton campaign financed and seeded the Russia collusion hoax to both the press and U.S. intelligence agencies.

...While Dagon [Georgia Tech researcher] holds some insight on Fusion GPS’s role in feeding the Alfa-Bank hoax to the media, prosecutors have also subpoenaed Fusion GPS’s “tech maven” Seago to testify. In response, Seago’s attorney, Holly Pierson, informed the government that Seago would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination absent a court order of immunity compelling her to testify at trial. Last month, on a motion by the special counsel, presiding judge Christopher Cooper entered an order immunizing Seago and compelling her to testify.

The court’s order, however, addressed solely Seago’s right not to incriminate herself, and did not address the question of attorney-client privilege. Another ruling last week by the D.C. federal judge addressed Joffe and the Clinton campaign’s claims of attorney-client privilege...

...While the court’s order last week addressed only the few dozen emails at issue, the court noted it “will apply the principles set forth above to any assertions of privilege during witness testimony at trial.” Consequently, if prosecutors seek to inquire of Seago about communications she had with Joffe about the Alfa-Bank data and whitepapers, Seago is likely to respond that she cannot answer the questions based on attorney-client privilege."
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/16/this-weeks-spygate-trial-is-bad-news-for-hillary-clinton/

This lady desperately does not want to talk because she fears being charged with a crime. Why is that? As I said even her refusing to testify claiming attorney client privileges hurts Sussmann's case. How with they try to play it out in court?

 

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" --Sir Walter Scott, 1808

 

Durham Trial: You Can’t Unsee All the Potential Conflicts of Interest in the ‘Russia Collusion’ Case in D.C.

“It feels like all of the people connected with the Russian Collusion hoax are old buddies, and a striking number of those are connected to the Michael Sussmann trial. Small world. Things are so incestuous in the swamp that you wonder why these elites consider themselves better than the hill people who live not too far away.”

If we can't get a conviction of an obvious crook from a DC jury, it's imperative that we move these Federal Agencies outside the Beltway.

 

The legal head of the Clinton campaign said Sussmann wasn't approved to go to the FBI by them.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/testimony-clinton-team-did-not-201309234.html

No AC privilege mentioned at all...

Not sure how Sussmann could be going to the FBI representing the candidate under that scenario..... But I'm sure you'll figure out a way that will involve Jewish Space Lasers and the infamous Hillary Clinton mind control

 

Words tjhat aren't under oath aren't taken seriously by the prosecution. So we'll see how the government handles this situation as it unfolds(government, here meaning the prosecuting party.)

 

I'm sorry.... I made the mistake of assuming everybody would click the link before responding...

That was testimony by Marc Elias, the legal head of the Clinton campaign, at the trial, in defense of Mr. Sussmann.

Sure, it's possible somebody at his law firm gave him permission to go to the FBI on behalf of the candidate without notifying the campaign, but I think that's reaching.... much like this entire case, IMHO....

 

So I read the link, and it gives the appearance of plausible deniability. Note though that it is not 'proven' or was established in the trial, it's simply Marc Elias's statement. My point still stands we'll see if the prosecution drops this, or if the prosecution can in fact prove he worked in cohoots with the Clinton Campaign.

(In my mind of course he did, as no other source had motive or opportunity. Unless Sussman would like to indict the late McCain.)

 

I don't think it's difficult to prove he did work for the Clinton campaign, since he billed time to the Clinton campaign. But if the campaign itself didn't give approval to go to the FBI, I fail to see how they can prove he lied about that... people are free to do things on their own, even while working for a company or entity.. and Elias logically explained why the campaign would have opposed a trip to the FBI in this situation.

Which is why this is one of the most lightweight prosecutions in history.

On it goes today... I wasn't even following it until I saw that article yesterday...

 

One way would be if they could get documentation to the effect that the Clinton Campaign wanted to use this 'information'(or disinformation as we know it to be) to damage the Trump campaign. There wouldn't be a more effective way to damage Trump(as well as to level the playing field) by having Trump under an FBI investigation(and it did a lot more than that.)

 

By Elias's own words yesterday, if the Clinton campaign could make a decent case for something capable of damaging their opponent, they would have preferred to leak it to the media vs going to the FBI.... the old fashioned way of campaigning vs knowingly getting assistance from a foreign power.

We all know there is ZERO chance the FBI would have put T**** personally (and publicly) under investigation for this server thing, at least by the time of the election....

Besides, the campaign was already under a legitimate investigation by this time, with several good reasons why, and the public knew bupkis about it (although I'd bet the Clinton campaign had some inklings by September).

 

It was a totally fabricated claim, bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and DNC, the goal was to get an FBI investigation going and then to leak that to the press so they would promote the story as factual.

 

HE WAS PAID BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND DNC FOR HIS TIME SPENT TO FABRICATE THE STORY AND MEET WITH THE FBI. What are you missing here? And it was a total smear campaign based on fabricated evidence and baseless claims. Have you missed that PRESIDENT Obama was briefed on the matter that the Clinton campaign was fabricating evidence to paint Trump as a Russian agent in order to divert from her email scandal. OBAMA knew it was going on and did he instruct the AG to investigate and did he call in the FBI to see what as their role............no he supported it.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-briefed-clinton-russia-vilify-trump-distract

 

Not according to the Clinton campaign....

Good luck proving otherwise....

It wasn't fabricated, it just wasn't anything nefarious... this one, anyway...

 

The case stands or falls on this, IMHO.
FBI Official Testifies Sussman Lied

 

Not really, everybody seems to agree that Sussmann told the FBI he wasn't there on behalf of a client

The case stands or falls on whether Durham can prove he did go to the FBI on behalf of a client.... otherwise, it's not a lie...

Big hill to climb when one of the clients denies under oath giving that permission.... but maybe it was the tech guy....

 

Exactly.

 

According to the evidence and the purpose for which the Clinton campaign was paying for it. Brennen warned Obama about it in July of 2016.

 

A big hill to climb when the judge won't allow you to do so. Have you read Johnathan Turley's column today?

Tale of two trials: How Sussmann is receiving every consideration denied to Flynn

..Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”

didn’t make sense” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...eceiving-every-consideration-denied-to-flynn/

 

It's always somebody's else's fault...

Durham has had WAY more latitude than a Biden appointed prosecutor had the administrations been reversed...

If this is his biggest outcome, win or lose, he loses...

Oh..... damn..... I forgot..... he'll always be the one who caught Kevin Clinesmith..... I'll never forget where I was when I heard our streets were safe....

 

Hmmm... did I read an opinion column from the MAGA-curious Johnathan Turley, with a title comparing an unknown lawyer to an un-American disgraced former general??

I'll go with no....

Does Johnny know Flynn never went to trial after pleading guilty??