Clinton Lawyer Asks Court to ‘Strike’ ‘Factual Background’ in Durham’s Latest Filing

Quote:Lawyers for former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussman, who has been charged in John Durham’s probe into the origins of the ‘Russiagate’ investigation, are demanding the court “strike” a “factual background” segment of the special counsel’s most recent filing because they claim it will “taint the jury pool.”

The Sussmann motion comes on the heels of a bombshell filing late last week by Durham that honed in on potential conflicts of interest in relation to the former Clinton attorney’s representation after he has been charged with making a false statement to a federal investigator.

Sussmann has pleaded not guilty to the charge.

“Unfortunately, the Special Counsel has done more than simply file a document identifying potential conflicts of interest,” Sussmann’s attorneys wrote. “Rather, the Special Counsel has again made a filing in this case that unnecessarily includes prejudicial—and false—allegations that are irrelevant to his Motion and to the charged offense, and are plainly intended to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool.

“Sadly, the Special Counsel seems to be succeeding in his effort to instigate unfair and prejudicial media coverage of Mr. Sussmann’s case,” Sussmann’s attorneys added, according to Fox News.

The Clinton attorney’s legal team also called on the court to “strike the Factual Background portion of the Special Counsel’s motion pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to ‘fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.’”

Fox News adds:

Durham’s 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.

But Durham’s Feb. 11 filing alleged that lawyers from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 had paid to infiltrate servers belonging to Trump Tower and later the White House, in order to establish an “inference” and “narrative” to bring to federal government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia.

In the February 11 filing in a section titled “Factual Background,” Durham said that Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”

It also alleged that Sussmann’s “billing records reflect” that he “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations.”

The filing showed that the Tech Executive and Sussmann met and talked to another law partner, who was serving as General Counsel to the Clinton campaign. That attorney, sources said, is Marc Elias, who worked at the law firm Perkins Coie.

The Perkins Coie firm was used by the Democratic National Committee and the 2016 Clinton campaign as the go-between to fund the debunked anti-Trump “Steele dossier.” The dossier was commissioned by Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm.

In a separate report, Fox News noted:

Durham’s filing states that in July 2016, the tech executive worked with Sussman, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm 1 on behalf of the Clinton campaign, numerous cyber researchers and employees at multiple internet companies to “assemble the purported data and white papers.”

“In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the filing said. “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”

“Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’ tying then-candidate Trump to Russia,” Durham said. “In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain ‘VIPs,’ referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton campaign.”

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/14...qAk5g&s=19

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/14...qAk5g&s=19

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(02-16-2022 10:50 PM)maximus Wrote:  https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/14...qAk5g&s=19

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Hillary Clinton's lawyer has been criminally indicted by the Durham probe for lying to the FBI about Russiagate/Alfa Bank. An FBI lawyer pled guilty to lying to the FISA court to spy on Carter Page. Nothing Hillary or Dems' media servants can say will ever negate these facts.

They got em

(02-17-2022 07:48 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 10:50 PM)maximus Wrote:  https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/14...qAk5g&s=19

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Hillary Clinton's lawyer has been criminally indicted by the Durham probe for lying to the FBI about Russiagate/Alfa Bank. An FBI lawyer pled guilty to lying to the FISA court to spy on Carter Page. Nothing Hillary or Dems' media servants can say will ever negate these facts.

They got em

Maybe, but what will they do with them now?

Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

Liberal gag reflex.

(02-17-2022 08:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

Sometimes it's hard to accept you've been consistently lied to. Some would rather die on that hill than accept the obvious.

So whatever happened to the servers that the DNC didn't want the FBI to investigate?

(02-17-2022 08:50 AM)b2b Wrote:  So whatever happened to the servers that the DNC didn't want the FBI to investigate?

Bottom of the ocean

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(02-17-2022 08:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

Because his nose is planted so firmly up her ass that if she gets locked up, he gets locked up.

(02-17-2022 08:54 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 08:50 AM)b2b Wrote:  So whatever happened to the servers that the DNC didn't want the FBI to investigate?

Bottom of the ocean

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Yup - right next to the Airliner they never found in the Indian ocean.

Spying Isn’t Spying If Democrats Do It

Quote:Democrats howled in protest when Richard Nixon absolved himself of wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal by saying, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” But today’s Democrats, caught out in a political dirty trick far greater than Watergate, adopt the same arrogant posture. Spying isn’t spying if Democrats do it, they have implicitly said in response to the investigation by Department of Justice special counsel John Durham. He is establishing that it was the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign and Putin, that colluded during the 2016 election.

It is laughable to hear all the villains in this saga — from Hillary Clinton to John Brennan to Christopher Steele — prattle on about the purity of democracy after they assaulted it so egregiously in 2016. The Obama administration’s investigation into Trump-Russia collusion was a dirty trick from beginning to end. Its genesis traces to John Brennan, a virulent anti-Trump partisan who had no business running the CIA. He turned it into something approaching a branch office of Hillary’s campaign. It is no wonder, as Durham tells us in a recent legal filing, that one of her lawyers felt comfortable pitching anti-Trump propaganda to CIA officials.

The FBI liaison to Brennan was Peter Strzok, the agent who infamously told his mistress that he was going to “stop” Trump. That Brennan and Strzok spearheaded the investigation into Trump-Russia collusion tells you all you need to know about its partisan origins. They would later solemnly spin their partisan fishing expedition as a “counterintelligence probe” into foreign interference in the election. Former FBI director James Comey even tried to spin it as an investigation into the campaign, not Trump — an obviously bogus explanation given that he never tipped Trump off to his alleged fears.

Even at this late date, the media, to the extent that it acknowledges the Durham investigation, still casts the Obama administration’s blatant spying on the Trump campaign as proper and dutiful. The chutzpah of it all is breathtaking. Reporters continue to treat Trump as the villain, not the victim, in the story. Never mind that Durham’s findings show the spying on Trump to be even more extensive than anyone realized.

Now we know why the denials of spying on Trump Tower were so lawyerly. Both the Obama administration and Hillary’s dirt-diggers targeted it for surveillance. Comey, who never directly denied Trump’s complaint, was able to intercept communications at Trump Tower through FISA warrants based on nothing more than Hillary’s campaign smears.

Walter Duranty, the New York Times correspondent famous for his defense of Stalin, won prizes for overlooking the transgressions of Russian leaders. His successors at the Times win prizes for making them up. Putin did not compromise Trump or his campaign, yet the reporters who peddled that line now have the gall to snort at Durham’s “narrative.” Their pathetic quibbles only make sense if you accept the double standard and Trump derangement syndrome driving them: that spying isn’t spying if done against a Republican the ruling class has deemed odious.

The Obama administration sent a “confidential informant” into Trump’s campaign — Stefan Halper, a Cambridge professor, who befriended Trump campaign volunteers to pump them for information — yet reporters refuse to call that “infiltration.” Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot — if a Republican administration paid an ostensible Democrat to hang out with members of a Democratic presidential campaign for the purpose of nailing them. And imagine further that that infiltrator came up with nothing but the Republican administration unleashed FISA warrants on one of his targets anyways. That’s what the Obama administration did to Carter Page. Halper’s secret courting of Page didn’t turn up anything incriminating. But instead of shutting the operation down, the Obama administration increased the spying on him. Comey got a warrant against Page that even fudged his status as a former CIA asset.

If a Republican administration behaved like this and did so at the prodding of Republican opposition researchers, the media would never stop talking about it. Reporters strain at Republican gnats and swallow Democratic camels. Reporters have spent the last year tearing their hair out over “threats to democracy,” even as they buried the growing evidence of Hillary’s election meddling. To hide their journalistic malpractice, they now have to defame Durham as a paranoid right-winger in hock to the Republicans. (READ MORE: John Durham’s Explosive Motion)

But if anything, it appears that Durham has been too restrained in his investigation. It looks like many of the principals in this travesty, John Brennan and Peter Strzok chief among them, will go unpunished. They have all failed upward, getting television gigs and book contracts, perches from which they get to comment on the very scandal they stoked. Jake Sullivan, who told lies about Russia for Hillary in 2016, is now Biden’s national security adviser. And then there is the domineering Biden aide Susan Rice, who summed up perfectly the double standard that has sanitized all the 2016 political mischief. She called the spying “by the book.”

(02-17-2022 08:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

I'm not defending her, neither is anyone else here. I voted for her solely because it was a vote against trump. I said years ago that I just want her to go away. And thankfully other than the right's continual obsession with her, she has.

But if you think I'm going to blindly parrot, so far, baseless allegations from this Durham debacle you're delusional.

If he actually presents any evidence that's credible and charges her with anything, I'll be right there calling for her the appropriate punishment. The facts just don't fit here. Durham made some vague allegations and presented no facts and the fox heads starting adding words like infiltrated and hacked and you all started following along like lost sheep.

(02-17-2022 08:50 AM)b2b Wrote:  So whatever happened to the servers that the DNC didn't want the FBI to investigate?

IIRC, an independent company made copies of them and sent them along to the FBI. But I've not looked into that for years since this stuff is so old it's grown moss!

(02-17-2022 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 08:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

I'm not defending her, neither is anyone else here. I voted for her solely because it was a vote against trump. I said years ago that I just want her to go away. And thankfully other than the right's continual obsession with her, she has.

But if you think I'm going to blindly parrot, so far, baseless allegations from this Durham debacle you're delusional.

If he actually presents any evidence that's credible and charges her with anything, I'll be right there calling for her the appropriate punishment. The facts just don't fit here. Durham made some vague allegations and presented no facts and the fox heads starting adding words like infiltrated and hacked and you all started following along like lost sheep.

The right's obsession with her? This coming from the guy who started a thread about Sarah Paliin?

(02-17-2022 11:36 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 08:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

I'm not defending her, neither is anyone else here. I voted for her solely because it was a vote against trump. I said years ago that I just want her to go away. And thankfully other than the right's continual obsession with her, she has.

But if you think I'm going to blindly parrot, so far, baseless allegations from this Durham debacle you're delusional.

If he actually presents any evidence that's credible and charges her with anything, I'll be right there calling for her the appropriate punishment. The facts just don't fit here. Durham made some vague allegations and presented no facts and the fox heads starting adding words like infiltrated and hacked and you all started following along like lost sheep.

The right's obsession with her? This coming from the guy who started a thread about Sarah Paliin?

And that means I'm obsessed with her, by posting about a relevant topic involving the New York Times in a case that many here think may have SCOTUS implications in the future?

(02-17-2022 11:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 11:36 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 08:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

I'm not defending her, neither is anyone else here. I voted for her solely because it was a vote against trump. I said years ago that I just want her to go away. And thankfully other than the right's continual obsession with her, she has.

But if you think I'm going to blindly parrot, so far, baseless allegations from this Durham debacle you're delusional.

If he actually presents any evidence that's credible and charges her with anything, I'll be right there calling for her the appropriate punishment. The facts just don't fit here. Durham made some vague allegations and presented no facts and the fox heads starting adding words like infiltrated and hacked and you all started following along like lost sheep.

The right's obsession with her? This coming from the guy who started a thread about Sarah Paliin?

And that means I'm obsessed with her, by posting about a relevant topic involving the New York Times in a case that many here think may have SCOTUS implications in the future?

No more than the right being obsessed over Hillary for talking about Durham looking in to Hillary's campaign allegedly spying on Trump. Let's also not pretend Hillary tried to fade into obscurity since her election try.

(02-17-2022 11:36 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 08:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

I'm not defending her, neither is anyone else here. I voted for her solely because it was a vote against trump. I said years ago that I just want her to go away. And thankfully other than the right's continual obsession with her, she has.

But if you think I'm going to blindly parrot, so far, baseless allegations from this Durham debacle you're delusional.

If he actually presents any evidence that's credible and charges her with anything, I'll be right there calling for her the appropriate punishment. The facts just don't fit here. Durham made some vague allegations and presented no facts and the fox heads starting adding words like infiltrated and hacked and you all started following along like lost sheep.

The right's obsession with her? This coming from the guy who started a thread about Sarah Paliin?

One major difference is that the left hasn't spent years clamoring for Sarah Palin to be locked up. She is rightly ridiculed at some points, other times she has been piled on unfairly by the media. But if some faction has been pushing for her incarceration, I've missed it and it clearly didn't capture the hearts & minds on the left as fully as your equally unsuccessful campaign to imprison Secretary Clinton has.

(02-17-2022 12:20 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 11:36 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 11:12 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-17-2022 08:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  Why is Tom so hell bent on defending Hillary?

I'm not defending her, neither is anyone else here. I voted for her solely because it was a vote against trump. I said years ago that I just want her to go away. And thankfully other than the right's continual obsession with her, she has.

But if you think I'm going to blindly parrot, so far, baseless allegations from this Durham debacle you're delusional.

If he actually presents any evidence that's credible and charges her with anything, I'll be right there calling for her the appropriate punishment. The facts just don't fit here. Durham made some vague allegations and presented no facts and the fox heads starting adding words like infiltrated and hacked and you all started following along like lost sheep.

The right's obsession with her? This coming from the guy who started a thread about Sarah Paliin?

One major difference is that the left hasn't spent years clamoring for Sarah Palin to be locked up. She is rightly ridiculed at some points, other times she has been piled on unfairly by the media. But if some faction has been pushing for her incarceration, I've missed it and it clearly didn't capture the hearts & minds on the left as fully as your equally unsuccessful campaign to imprison Secretary Clinton has.

What reason would you have to say Lock Her Up to Palin?

By the way, Hillary and Marc Elias is taking over BLM funds, so there's likely going to be additional reasons to lock her up.