One of the differences between the Muller team and Durham team is that the press is getting what they're reporting, or not reporting, from court filings not leaks, so Durham is submitting this stuff into the court record as evidence. I don't think many people know outside of the team what Durham has, and he may eventually come up with a nothing burger. That being said what he has released he's done so to a federal court, not to the media, so it has to have some merit.

I have as much confidence of her getting prosecuted as I do Trump, as both sides keep coming at both of them and nothing sticks to either. One thing that can be said is that there is enough to say that they're both scumbags.

yeah.... any linked commentary that uses the term "frothy right" 4x sounds like an unbiased journalistic story kinda like seeing Hillary frothy in he recent comments to get back on the podium. haha

yeah.... any linked commentary that uses the term "frothy right" 4x sounds like an unbiased journalistic story kinda like seeing Hillary frothy in he recent comments to get back on the podium. haha

One of the differences between the Muller team and Durham team is that the press is getting what they're reporting, or not reporting, from court filings not leaks, so Durham is submitting this stuff into the court record as evidence. I don't think many people know outside of the team what Durham has, and he may eventually come up with a nothing burger. That being said what he has released he's done so to a federal court, not to the media, so it has to have some merit.

One of the differences between the Muller team and Durham team is that the press is getting what they're reporting, or not reporting, from court filings not leaks, so Durham is submitting this stuff into the court record as evidence.

A quick google yielded a few examples.



https://www.rollingstone.com/...-obstruction-817555/
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/25-leaks-about-the-mueller-investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/428018-dem-strategist-says-media-leaks-from-mueller-probe-should-be-taken-with-a-grain

One of the differences between the Muller team and Durham team is that the press is getting what they're reporting, or not reporting, from court filings not leaks, so Durham is submitting this stuff into the court record as evidence. I don't think many people know outside of the team what Durham has, and he may eventually come up with a nothing burger. That being said what he has released he's done so to a federal court, not to the media, so it has to have some merit.

Why does Durham submitting in court filings have merit?

Because his filings are very different than what the Mueller special counsel filed. The Sussman indictment for example. It is 27 pages long for a single 1001 (lying to FBI) count. Mueller on the other hand spent 24 pages on Stone’s indictment, for multiple counts of obstruction and 5 1001 charges. Why did Durham spend 27 pages on a single charge, when Mueller was able to do it so many fewer pages for more charges? Especially when you see that the case against Sussman is very weak. So it has a bunch of unneeded information, but not much evidence to show Sussman is guilty.

The likely answer is the Durham don’t need all those pages. He is using people trust in federal filings as a way to launder a political conspiracy theory. I don’t see how that behavior could be interpreted as showing his investigation has merit.

Of course we all remember that his second in command did resign because they believed that the investigation did not have merit and was a political witch hunt, which is backed up by all of Durhams subsequent actions.

Do you think you have a better insight into the investigation than someone working on it?

A quick google yielded a few examples.



https://www.rollingstone.com/...-obstruction-817555/
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/25-leaks-about-the-mueller-investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/428018-dem-strategist-says-media-leaks-from-mueller-probe-should-be-taken-with-a-grain

ECE wrote:

A quick google yielded a few examples.



https://www.rollingstone.com/...-obstruction-817555/
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/25-leaks-about-the-mueller-investigation-and-the-problems-they-may-cause
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/428018-dem-strategist-says-media-leaks-from-mueller-probe-should-be-taken-with-a-grain

yeah.... any linked commentary that uses the term "frothy right" 4x sounds like an unbiased journalistic story kinda like seeing Hillary frothy in he recent comments to get back on the podium. haha

Why does Durham submitting in court filings have merit?

Because his filings are very different than what the Mueller special counsel filed. The Sussman indictment for example. It is 27 pages long for a single 1001 (lying to FBI) count. Mueller on the other hand spent 24 pages on Stone’s indictment, for multiple counts of obstruction and 5 1001 charges. Why did Durham spend 27 pages on a single charge, when Mueller was able to do it so many fewer pages for more charges? Especially when you see that the case against Sussman is very weak. So it has a bunch of unneeded information, but not much evidence to show Sussman is guilty.

The likely answer is the Durham don’t need all those pages. He is using people trust in federal filings as a way to launder a political conspiracy theory. I don’t see how that behavior could be interpreted as showing his investigation has merit.

Of course we all remember that his second in command did resign because they believed that the investigation did not have merit and was a political witch hunt, which is backed up by all of Durhams subsequent actions.

Do you think you have a better insight into the investigation than someone working on it?

when your prior posts, under several prior user names, generate a "signature" one can use to identify posts made in the future, under your new user accounts, that should tell you something about yourself. that certain banned users keep coming back to a place they're not welcome is its own psychological mystery.

I don't have doubts that the investigation has merit. I do have doubts that the investigation is uncovering some sort of Hillary criminal mastermind plot.

I am glad you brought this up. I have read a lot of legal filings over the years and Durham's are some of the ponderous and nonsensical I have seen. He tosses in a bunch of unrelated stuff that appears to be inserted just to fuel the conspiracy theory machine.

I am glad you brought this up. I have read a lot of legal filings over the years and Durham's are some of the ponderous and nonsensical I have seen. He tosses in a bunch of unrelated stuff that appears to be inserted just to fuel the conspiracy theory machine.

In this instance, Durham filed a motion last week asking the presiding judge, Christopher R. “Casey” Cooper, to inquire into a potential conflict of interest borne by Latham & Watkins, the law firm representing defendant Michael Sussmann. ... Prosecutors are duty bound, under court precedents, to raise any potential conflicts involving defense counsel of which they become aware. ... Ergo, conflicts get resolved pretrial.

Here, Durham (who related the applicable law on this subject at pages 5–6 of his motion) has opined that the potential conflicts can probably be addressed by a waiver. And we should stress: To flag a conflict is not to accuse anyone of misconduct; it is to address a contingency lest it become a huge problem.

In order for a judge to understand why there is a conflict, the prosecutor must foreshadow what the evidence will prove. This enables the judge to grasp why the testimony of possible witnesses who are current or former clients of defense counsel matters to the case. That is why Durham had to proffer parts of his case that bear on Perkins-Coie and Elias. If Sussmann is to be permitted to keep L&W as his trial counsel, he must waive the right to claim prejudice from any potential conflict his L&W lawyers have.