John Durham Indicts Second Operative InTrump Russian Probe

1. 79

   Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

   
   In May 2019, Attorney General William Barr tapped Connecticut’s U.S. Attorney John Durham to look into issues related to the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. Durham is a longtime federal prosecutor in Connecticut known for leading organized crime and public corruption cases.
   
   Aug 2020 --- Durham's first inditement  Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to falsifying an email used to support the surveillance of President Donald Trump's former campaign aide Carter Page.
   
   Sept 16, 2021 ---   A federal grand jury returned an indictment sought by Special Counsel John Durham against Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann, accusing him of lying to the FBI during the Russia investigation.
   
   According to the indictment, Sussmann — a prominent cybersecurity lawyer whose law firm Perkins Coie worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign — lied at a September 2016 meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in which Sussmann shared false information about possible connections between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. The indictment also accuses Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann of concealing the fact that he was working for the Clinton campaign while pushing for an investigation into then-candidate Donald Trump's ties to Russia in 2016.
   
   Sussmann told Baker he wasn’t working on behalf of any client, yet prosecutors allege he was representing the Clinton campaign as well as a tech industry professional to provide the server data, according to the indictment.  The indictment comes just weeks before the five-year statute of limitations was set to expire.
   
   " Attorneys for Sussmann sent a statement to Fox News. The statement was signed by attorneys Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth, with the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP"
   
   "Michael Sussmann was indicted today because of politics, not facts. The Special Counsel appears to be using this indictment to advance a conspiracy theory he has chosen not to actually charge.  This case represents the opposite of everything the Department of Justice is supposed to stand for. Mr. Sussmann will fight this baseless and politically-inspired prosecution."
   
   So, pleased to see some results coming out of this special Council investigation. The latest inditement offers "some clarity" to what the DNC, and Hillary Clinton were up to when they started their Russia Russia Russia campaign that attempted to sew a connection between Trump and Russia. After all, this cheap political grift was the first seed planted. Planted to spread the lie that Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election?
   
   This latest revelation doesn't shock me. I mean America's political history shows just how deceptive politicians can be.  But, this deceptive ploy will surely be one that is long remembered and make history books.
   
   So, where will Durham's investigation lead? Will we see "bigger heads" roll, or has Special Council Durham just sacrificed up a couple of low-level stooges, and call it a day?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      When being interviewed by FBI Sussmann claimed he was not working for the Clinton Campaign ---  https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-relea … 1/download
      
      "During the meeting, SUSSMANN lied about the capacity m which he was
      providing the allegations to the FBI. Specifically, SUSSMANN stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations "for any client," which led the FBI General Counsel to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along
      information, not as a paid advocate or political operative. In fact, and as alleged in further detail below, this statement was intentionally false and misleading because, in assembling and conveying these allegations, SUSSMANN acted on behalf of specific clients, namely, (i) a U.S. technology industry executive ("Tech Executive-I") at a U.S. Internet company ("Internet Company-I"), and
      (ii) the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign (the "Clinton Campaign")."
      
      AND CURRENTLY ---   It is said that Durham is now seeking an indictment Of law firm Perkins Coie.
      
      https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/p … ussia.html

      replyreport
2. 86

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   And for the other side of the coin.
   
   https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/durham-s- … n-n1279490
   
   But none of this really disqualifies the fact that Manafort has been proven to have colluded with Russian Intelligence while Trump Campaign Chairman.  Hence, the Trump Campaign DID collude with Russia in 2016, regardless of this indictment.  It's not Clinton that directed Manafort to give internal polling data to the Kremlin.  That would have been Trump's people.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Very true it was not Clinton that directed Manafort to give polling data to the Kremlin. And it's a fact neither did Trump or do we know the facts were not able to prove how the polling information was used or actually that it was even shared with Russia.
      
      I also must point out Manaford was not charged with collusion with Russia.
      
      Here is what Manafort was charged with.
      The charges against Manafort at the trial broke down as follows:
      
      False income tax returns (five counts): Manafort did not report any of the $30 million of his Ukrainian payments that he transferred into the US on his income tax returns, or pay taxes on it.
      
      He also falsely said, on those tax returns, that he had no authority over any financial accounts in foreign countries.
      
      He faced one count for each tax year from 2010 to 2014.
      Failure to report foreign bank or financial assets (four counts):
      
      Manafort also didn’t report any of his offshore accounts to the Treasury Department by filing what’s known as an FBAR form — a legally required disclosure.
      
      He faced one count for each year from 2011 to 2014.
      Bank fraud or bank fraud conspiracy (nine counts): These charges related to Manafort’s attempts to get loans from several US banks between 2015 and January 2017.   
      
      Prosecutors alleged that he made false statements such as lying about his company’s profits, existing loans on his properties, and other matters — and that he eventually secured more than $20 million in loans.
      The jury concluded that Manafort was guilty on all five tax counts, one FBAR count, and two bank fraud counts. They deadlocked on the other three FBAR counts and the other seven bank fraud or bank fraud conspiracy counts.
      
      "The Mueller team found evidence Manaford shared polling info with Kilimnik, but the Mueller team was not able to prove how the polling information was used or actually that it was even shared with Russia.  Mueller’s team also said it couldn’t “reliably determine” Manafort’s purpose in sharing it, nor assess what Kilimnik may have done with it — in part due to questions over Manafort’s credibility. The Senate committee also came up empty, though its report drew attention for its characterization of Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer."  https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump … e21fce6ebf
      
      This thread was meant to be current relevant news.  I had hoped we could concentrate on the newest Durham indictment and the fact that According to the indictment, Sussmann — a prominent cybersecurity lawyer whose law firm Perkins Coie worked for HILLARY Clinton’s 2016 campaign — lied at a September 2016 meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in which Sussmann shared false information about possible connections between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank. The indictment also accuses Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann of concealing the fact that he was working for the Clinton campaign while pushing for an investigation into then-candidate Donald Trump's ties to Russia in 2016.   This certainly was one of the first "apparently" false allegations given to the FBI that started the entire Russian smear against Trump.
      
      As of today, Trump has not been charged with anything at all. Yet his name was connected to multiple election crimes interference by left media. Perhaps the Durham report will offer more evidence to further clarify who did break the law during the 2016 election.  At this point,   Sussmann — a prominent cybersecurity lawyer whose law firm Perkins Coie worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign has been accused of lying to the FBI. He will have his day in court.   Or maybe he will plead guilty and get probation like FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith did.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         While Mueller did not charge Manafort, that does not negate the fact that a bipartisan committee in the Senate did conclude that he knowingly colluded with members of Russian Intelligence.  Hence, members of the Trump Campaign DID collude with the Russians.
         
         So I find it very current when you deny that the campaign did work with a hostile foreign government in 2016 by calling it a smear.  And even more concerning are the ten counts of obstruction of justice that Mueller laid out in his report that Trump committed to interfere in that investigation between his campaign and the Russians.
         
         As for Sussmann, he did not deny that his law firm was working with the Clinton Campaign - he even stated that fact when interviewed.  Just that he did not act on their behalf when it came to the actions he took in disseminating information.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I did not deny anything, I offered information that was from Mueller's report. His opinion, not mine. There does not seem to be any proof that could lead to indicting Manafort on any form of working with Russia to interfere with the election. There certainly is lots of smoke, but no charges.
            
            Found this account of the Senate committee pretty much came up with the same opinion in regard to Manaford and Kilimnik. They did feel," Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.." from the report.
            
            "Among the more striking sections of the report is the committee’s description of the close, professional relationship between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the committee describes as a Russian intelligence officer.
            
            “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the report says.
            
            The report notes how Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik and says there is “some evidence” Kilimnik may have been connected to Russia’s effort to hack and leak Democratic emails, though that information is redacted. The report also says “two pieces of information” raise the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to those operations, but what follows is again blacked out.
            
            Both men were charged in Mueller’s investigation, but neither was accused of any tie to the hacking.
            
            A Manafort lawyer, Kevin Downing, said Tuesday that information sealed at the request of Mueller’s team “completely refutes whatever the intelligence committee is trying to surmise.” He added, “It just looks like complete conjecture."
            
            Let me remind you, my OP does not mention Manafort, you brought him up. The contents of the thread are all about the DNC and Hillary Clinton and the two indictments that Durham has handed down thus far. Let me refresh you to the subject---
            
            Aug 2020 --- Durham's first inditement  Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to falsifying an email used to support the surveillance of President Donald Trump's former campaign aide Carter Page.
            
            Sept 16, 2021 ---   A federal grand jury returned an indictment sought by Special Counsel John Durham against Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann, accusing him of lying to the FBI during the Russia investigation. 
            
            Durham is contending that Sussmann—acting as a lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign and an unnamed technology executive—lied to the FBI about WHOM he was representing in the course of an elaborate scheme to get the FBI interested in a false story tying Trump to Russia.
            
            Actually, Sussmann — a prominent cybersecurity lawyer whose law firm Perkins Coie worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign — lied at a September 2016 meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in which Sussmann shared false information about possible connections between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.
            
            This Thread is a current political news story,  about the lawyer whose law firm Perkins Coie worked for Hillary Clinton and the DNC on the 2016 campaign. It is not about Trump's campaign. I am not about to go any further with "he did this,  so ignore what she did".
            
            Like I said Sussmann will have his day in court. It will be interesting to follow.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, it will be interesting to see if Durham can prove his case when all he has is Baker's word versus Sussmann's.
               
               And yes, I brought Manafort up in response to your claim that it was an attempt to sew a connection between Trump and Russia.  There were hundreds of connections between members of Trump's Campaign and Russians in 2016, including members of Russian Intelligence, as Russia interfered in our elections to help Trump.  In what world is it not prudent to determine if the candidate who was helped by a hostile foreign government, whose campaign had hundreds of contacts with Russians, is then beholden to that country when they have attacked our elections?  I would call that smart national security.
               
               When Mueller laid out ten instances constituting Obstruction of Justice where Trump tried to interfere with Mueller's investigation of Russia's attack on our elections, to me, that's treason.  Trump actively protected the country that attacked our elections.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  FBI General Counsel James Baker may have taped the session. I have not found any information on any actual evidence Durham presented to get the indictment. I would venture to think, he has good evidence. The Justice Department allowed the indictment to go forward despite a written appeal by Sussman’s lawyers to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
                  
                  I would think Sussman will plead guilty to lying, and walk away with probation.  He won't want to be squeezed for information on why "he supposedly lied to the FBI." 
                  
                  " There were hundreds of connections between members of Trump's Campaign and Russians in 2016, including members of Russian Intelligence, as Russia interfered in our elections to help Trump. "
                  
                  Not sure what connections you are referring to. I am under the impression no real connections could be proved. Perhaps you could list one. I am aware of the Senate report and that they reported --  " Intelligence agencies concluded in January 2017 that Russians had engaged in cyber-espionage and distributed messages through Russian-controlled propaganda outlets to undermine public faith in the democratic process, hurt Clinton and aid Trump, who ultimately became president."
                  
                  Beyond that, I know of no other information on any other form of election interference. I do know there have been multiple conspiracy theories. I try not to get involved with unproven theories.
                  
                  I am not sure what you speak of in regard to Trump protecting Russia. I followed Trump's foreign policies with Russia, and I must say he certainly slapped them with not only Actions but multiple harsh sanctions. He also armed Ukraine with Javelin Anti-Tank Missiles.  Not sure I would call him soft on Russia. I would be interested to hear your complaint on something he did that lead you to your conclusion.
                  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr … on-russia/

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Aside from Kilimnick, the Senate panel said it assessed that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has “significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services,” as did another participant in the meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin.
                     
                     The panel said it uncovered connections that were “far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known,” particularly regarding Veselnitskaya.
                     
                     On top of those two clear cases of them interacting with Russian intelligence:  https://time.com/5572821/donald-trump-russia-contacts/
                     
                     As for the obstruction of justice acts committed by Trump that helped protect Russia during the Mueller Investigation, here is some detail:
                     https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction … t-heat-map

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        The only crime I could find thus far she was charged with was money laundering. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/68323865 … aundering-
                        I am aware she met with Trump Jr. at his Trump Tower office. have you ever been to Trump tower? Let me assure you (I had an opportunity to visit the building) it has cameras as a vegas casino.  it has door guards that one must deal with before entering. And a front desk where one would need to identify themself to be admitted to the elevator that leads to offices.  If Trump Jr. was meeting for notorious reasons he certainly did not take care to hide this woman's appointment or her identity.
                        
                        I could not find any information on this woman other than speculation of who she represented. However, she did meet with Trump Jr. If this "panel" found crimes it would seem they would request the DOJ investigate their findings. At this point, it would just be a handful of people making claims, that they can't prove or won't even ask for their concerns to be investigated by the DOJ.
                        
                        Ok, I had a look at your link. First, this is all opinion-oriented I won't call it bias, but that was my first thought. She put forth conjecture, a compelling road map but she had incomplete information.  I can see how one could be swayed to believe Ms. Quinta Jurecic's detailed compelling descriptions of her thoughts.
                        
                        She came to different conclusions than Meuller using his very three criteria.   Mueller appeared to feel he could not support charging Trump with anything...   
                        
                        I don't mind revisiting this subject. However, is it not time to look at this other variable of the Russian interference debacle?  How it got its legs, how it progressed into all of what we lived through?
                        
                        The Durham investigation is shedding some light on how it got started, and who played intricate roles in the first days of the allegations that Trump was conspiring with Russia to sway the 2016 election.  We have already found out that the Steel dossier was not truthful, yet it was a document used to obtain FISA applications on several occasions to spy on American citizens.
                        https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ … a-warrants
                        
                        I am pleased to see some facts surfacing out of the Durham investigation.

                        replyreport
3. 60

   Live to Learnposted 2 years ago

   I saw this. Proof positive that the Clinton campaign was complicit.
   
   Of course, the left will never accept any proof from any source.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Was there a guilty verdict we on the left are not aware of yet?  No, just some partisan hack's attempt to validate the work he did on the origins that ended up proving that people in Trump's Campaign did, in fact, work with members of the Russian Intelligence services during the 2016 election.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I read posts by you continuously pushing debunked narratives. I doubt we’ll see anything come of this. Does anyone in Washington ever get held accountable for wrong doing anymore?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            With the two different realities people on the right and left currently live in, I'm fairly comfortable with the research behind my narratives and that there is no way they would be accepted by someone being fed the level of lies that some on here are exposed to.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Lol. Ok.

               replyreport
   2. 79

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I have faith that the Clinton Russia grift will be uncovered and exposed. It is unraveling with the two Durham indictments. he is providing the roots of how the Clinton stooges planted the seed, and I am sure we will see the entire plan laid out. 
      
      I agree the many on the left will not accept the facts. However, I want the truth, as I am sure you do. IMO, the left is a lost cause.

      replyreport
4. 86

   My Esotericposted 9 months ago

   And, as expected, found Not Guilty very quickly.

   replyreport