Durham's investigation of the investigation

I read it. I don't see where Sussman admitted making a false statement. Seems he testified who he worked for. The supposed false statement is based on the difference in that testimony and Baker's "contemporaneous note" that said he wasn't representing any client. Seems pretty thin gruel call it lying when Durham didn't even have any transcript/recording of exactly what Sussman said five years earlier.

Not to mention, in separate testimony Baker said that Sussman said that "he had cyber experts that had obtained some information that they thought they should get into the hands of the FBI." Dollars to donuts this ends with no conviction.

 

The researchers have not been indicted. I don't get why you think that they have. There would have been plenty of news coverage if that was the case. They have defense lawyers because they have gotten caught up in a DOJ investigation and it is stupid to not hire a lawyer when that happens to you.

Again, the Alfa Bank to Trump Tower theory has been settled. It was a third party company contracted by the Trump Organization to send marketing ads for them. Read the indictment.

 

The author of the article you cite is extremely wrong about a very important point. This is what the article claims:

In July, Barr took the extraordinary step of declassifying investigators’ interview notes with a secret source for the Steele dossier. The source was interviewed by American intelligence officials in 2017, in part because they had also used him as a trusted source.

That bold part is not only wrong but incredibly wrong. Steele primary source, Igor Danchenko, was not a trusted source for the the US IC but a suspected Russian intel asset the FBI was tracking. The FBI was looking at getting a FISA warrant against him prior to him leaving the US to go back to Russian in '11.

Steele dossier sub-source was suspected of spying for Russia, DOJ reveals

 

You previously stated that there was a link between the Trump campaign and Alfa Bank. In the indictment, Durham stated that Sussmann provided the FBI with 3 'white papers' with the computer data he gathered (evidence). The FBI further stated that even with this 'evidence', there was nothing that linked Alfa bank with Trump campaign. Also, the Tech executive gathered this non-public data without a warrant. I'm not sure he was allowed to do that. Durham alleges that Sussmann and the tech executive were coordinating with the Clinton campaign. Is Durham lying about this? Is the FBI lying that they found no connection between the bank and the Trump campaign. I will be interested in a few months (or years) to see how this all ends. And thanks for providing a link to the indictment.

 

Uhmm, the tech executive didn't have the ability to get a warrant. Just like you or even I don't.

 

There are more problems than materiality, which I still think is a significant hurdle. They have to prove the unrecorded statement. They have to prove the unrecorded statement was false. When you are representing multiple individuals and entities, all with some interest in an area, how does the Government prove on whose behalf you are actually reporting something, including your own? Over the years I have made dozens of reports of criminal activity or people engaged in criminal activity to law enforcement as a "concerned citizen" even though the actual source of the information was a client who did not want to come forward for security or other personal reasons. If he made the statement to the FBI on behalf of more than one client, but only disclosed one, is that necessarily a lie?

This one is going into the courtroom on a leash.

 

For those that want some information on what all of this is about. The McCarthy report gives a comprehensive view of the issue. Starting at the 4 minute mark to the 41 minute mark you can get an idea as to why the charge now and a reason for a 26 page indictment. Whether more indictments will follow remains to be seen.

Episode 144: The Durham Indictment

 

This is what you need to understand, the "Trump server to Alfa Bank" theory was thoroughly checked out by the FBI during the Mueller investigation. The Meuller team decided that this theory did not even warrant inclusion into their final report.

Now who do you think has a better understanding of that theory? Some NYTimes authors that cannot even get the major facts of their story straight or the actual FBI that did the investigation of it?

If you are willing to invest the time, I would suggest reading "Spooked: The Trump Dossier, Black Cube, and Rise of Private Spies." It is written by a Barry Meier. This is his background: A former New York Times reporter and a member of the Times’ team that won the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. He is also a two-time winner of the prestigious George Polk Award for Investigative Reporting and other professional honors. Prior to joining the Times in 1989, he worked for the Wall Street Journal and New York Newsday. He is also the author of Pain Killer and Missing Man.

Meier gets into all of this in detail. It is one of the better books I've read that tries to look at what happened with the Steele Dossier from all sides.

 

That's exactly my point. Unless there was a subpoena or warrant, whichever would apply in this case, I stated that I'm not sure a tech executive can go in and get this kind of data and disseminate it.

 

I cannot stress this enough to you, the New Yorker articles are completely OBE and irrelevant at this point. The FBI has checked out their allegations and found them to be without merit. This is attempting to revive a dead horse after it has been dead for over a year.

And why would you believe anything that the New Yorker author says in his article if he cannot even get basic facts about this case right?

If the activity between the Alfa Bank server and the Trump Org was in anyway significant or could have been perceived to be significant, Mueller’s team would have included it in their final report. It was completely left out. That does speak well of the researchers product.

These researchers also have a reason to get their side of the story out and say they were right. If they were working on a government contract during the time they did this research and used their accesses for it or billed the government for their time, they could have legal exposure. Trying to publicly reframe Durham’s actions in this case as dishonest helps their PR narrative.

Finally, this is a continuation of the Trump Collusion vs Hoax argument. There are people and media outlets on both sides that are dug in based on what they reported between ‘16 and mid-‘19. Neither wants to admit they were wrong and will slant their reporting in order to make it appear they were right. The New Yorker is on the Collusion side, just as outlets like Townhall/Federalist are on the Hoax side.

Your best bet is to go back and read the actual government reports. The Mueller Report, the DOJ IG Report on Crossfire Hurricane, the Durham indictment are the best documents to read to understand what actually happened.

 

From the indictment...

“Tech Executive-1 had exploited his access to non-public data at multiple internet companies to conduct opposition research concerning Trump (ii) in furtherance of these efforts, Tech Executive-1 had enlisted, and was continuing to enlist , the assistance of researchers at a U.S. based university who were receiving and analyzing Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract; and (iii) SUSSMANN, Tech Executive-1, and Law Firm-1 had coordinated, and were continuing to coordinate, with representatives of the Clinton Campaign with regard to the data and written materials that SUSSSMANN gave to the FBI and media.”

 

Why not?

 

Bi.g enough that I'd bet against any jury convicting Sussman.

OTOH, I'm amused by the irony of Durham investigating the alleged corrupt FBI only to bring a charge that essentially makes them the victim.

 

Basically, it's based totally on your partisan view of whether the investigation is justified. That's what I figured. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

So the deep state is one dude not in the government who, according to a note in a notebook, said he didn’t work for anyone but had been hired at some point by the Clinton’s for something? I’d like to save some time from reading up on all this and glean the info from the posts here.

 

It doesn't seem worth caring about. If the dude lied, he lied. It's a crime. I'll let the courts figure it out. And I'm all for Durham finishing his investigation. Thus far, he hasn't found much, it seems.

 

The ever shifting standards fit when an investigation is warranted is amusing. When it is a Republican in the cross hairs, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you even get started. For a Democrat, any passing conspiracy theory is sufficient cause for a multi year probe.