I don't think anyone is particularly worried about the Durham probe....one indictment that won't survive a motion to dismiss and a motion for judgement of acquittal. The case won't see a jury.
Strategically, I am puzzled by Durham indicting these researchers. They brought forth evidence based on their cybersecurity backgrounds and in their research found a plausible theory of collusion between the Trump organization and Alfa bank. What Durham is insinuating in his indictment is that they really didn't believe it was a cybersecurity threat, they just wanted to play a political game and he cherry-picked from their emails, to make that case. The defendants will now be allowed to bring all of their evidence forward to prove they really felt it was plausible the Trump org was communicating through the server and trying obfuscate the communication. It just seems to be an avenue to bring their evidence forward to the record.
For what I have read, the researchers have not been indicted. They are involved in the investigation because they conducted the research that was eventually presented to the FBI. I have not read anything about them being charged with anything. Whether they believed in their research is immaterial to the charges against Sussmann since he is charged about lying to the FBI about who he was (or was not) representing when meeting with the FBI. I saw something where DARPA said they were cooperating with the investigation, so it seems like these researchers may have been working on a DARPA contract. If that is actually the case and they could have some legal exposure if they mischarged their hours or abused their accesses.
1 in 302 million = Odds of winning Powerball 0 in 302 Million = Odds of Durham report producing anything meaningful
Here is a link with the indictment. The material lie is that Sussman was working for the Clinton campaign when he reported the alleged links discovered by the investigators to the FBI, but Sussman told the FBI he was not working for a candidate. Apparently time was billed to the Clinton campaign. So, that lie supposedly lent credence to the information and caused the FBI to take action to investigate. READ: Indictment of lawyer as part of probe into origins of Trump-Russia investigation - CNNPolitics
No, it is nothing like that. It was a legitimate inquiry. Read the indictment. And, Sussmans client was the tech executive, not the campaign, regardless of who Sussman billed. Who pays the bill does not make that person or entity the client. He represented both the tech executive land the campaign. He should have identified that he was bringing the information on behalf of a client when asked; the identity of a client is not privileged. And if asked, but the client was to be confidential, he should have responded truthfully he acted for a client so the FBI could assess the information. Then again, we all learned that lying to the FBI is a process crime. You are the leading proponent of that and repeatedly asserted that as to Flynn. Funny how that changed when Democrat was indicted. Such hypocrocy. Anyway, we will hear how material the false statement was when Baker, the DBi GC, testifies.
I believe the researchers now have defense attorneys, so I assumed they were indicted. Here is a well-researched article by the New Yorker in 2018 that details how the cybersecurity experts discovered the link and how they investigated it, which is pretty convincing that there was active communication between Alfa and TO. The article also brings opposing opinions as well. It's a good read, and makes Durham's charge pretty ludicrous. Was There a Connection Between a Russian Bank and the Trump Campaign?
And a follow-up piece written by the same investigative journalist at the New Yorker, which brings to light how Alfa and Durham seem to be aligned on finding the same information, which could expose US cybersecurity operations. Which makes Durham's motives more unclear. Fortunately, Barr is gone and hopefully Garland can create more transparency. The Contested Afterlife of the Trump-Alfa Bank Story
Wasn't this based on a vague note of a meeting that wasn't either recorded or transcribed, the note of which might not be accurate of what was actually Sussman said? Good luck securing that conviction.
Why are you libs trying to ignore the elephant in the room? https://nypost.com/2021/10/01/collu...ver-durham-indictment-linked-to-clinton-camp/
Bad journalism? I think it's quite amusing that you disagree with my JOA posts when you don't have the first idea of what the underlying problems with the case are. I'm not ignoring anything, most lawyers are surprised Durham sought this particular indictment and are predicting at what stage it will be thrown out. There are a myriad of problems with this case, you have identified some of them.
I think this will be submitted to the jury. Materiality can be an amorphous concept. It should have been a factor who the client was and if it was a campaign. It may not have mattered in terms of in terms of initiating an investigation. And the investigation of this was not necessarily an investigation of Trump, but equally protective if it had turned out that the server was unknowingly compromised. But it turned out to not even be that. Which clearly the FBI was going to find out once it investigated. So, contrary to our 0-4 poster’s comments, this is not “weaponizong” the FBI against a candidate. What is bothersome is how the false information about a compromised server became so public. When it wasnt that.
Read the indictment in the CNN link. Sussman later admitted to Congress he made a false statement. We will see what develops factually but as the case proceeds.
The charge against Sussmen for lying I can see, but against the researchers seems like an ulterior purpose. I don't know if Garland has signed off on that. Alfa bank is also suing the researchers for defamation, which opens up Alfa to discovery. Not unsurprisingly, the three principals bringing the suit, who own 60% of the bank, say they can't find any documents. They are trying to get at how the US protects itself from cyberattacks. So is Durham.
When there is a predict for an investigation and the lie is material to an investigation, yes. When there is not a predict and the answer is not material, it's not.
