THREAD: Lots of filings hit in Sussmann. Check this out. Was this on Baker's phone the OIG didn't share with Durham until someone else mentioned it?
2/ This provides another great example of the big circle hug the Clinton Campaign used, feeding media and FBI same fake story, and then media uses FBI to give story credibility and FBI uses media to give its investigation credibility.
3/ I think this is first time, Durham spoke of the motive here, but that will be key at trial for the jury to "get" it.
4/ Interesting!!
5/ See how DC law is on this point--doesn't have to be illegal conspiracy--so Durham doesn't have to prove they other members committed a crime to get it admitted.
6/ Imagine that--Elias can't recall.
7/ WHOA: The CEO??
8/ Interesting to see the Clinton Campaign folks "connected"
9/ Not sure if we knew this or not?
10/ Yup, again State Department is front and center.
11/ Interesting re Researcher #2:
12/ Curious if Sussmann told Baker that the three "differrent" white papers were by folks all working together?
13/ WHOA. So who was working with April who was killing herself and needs some positive encouragement?
14/ I still don't know how to read this:
15/ Yup! That's why even those not criminally culpable are morally culpable.. See also yesterday's article. thefederalist.com/2022/04/04/the…
16/ "Plausibility." Yup, great standard for cyber security experts to want to have sold to American people of a conspiracy against a political enemy!
17/ Dang. I wish Research 1 was still oblivious that his communications via Ga Tech email were subject to FOIA.
18/ So is Dagon suggesting the data collection violated Trump's privacy rights (absent criminal conduct which therre was none?)
19/ "Where people nee to make a decision how to vote." Yup, that's precisely what this was about. Shame on them.
20/ Holy Sh!T:
21/ Who's the conspiracy theorists again?
22/ So, Durham's team doesn't need to say the data is fake--they need only say there were serious doubts & that explains motive or the lie. AND that also connects to materiality. That was wise move b/c you don't jury thinking it matters is true or false for issue on trial.
23/ Was this in the white paper Researcher 1 reviewed?
23/ These are three pieces of 404(b) evidence Durham seeks to admit. 404(b) evidence is evience of other bad acts, crimes, etc. You can't present that evidence to say "once a drug dealer, always a drug dealer," but you can to show motive, intent or other things.
24/ Argument that statement to CIA is admissible because it fits this scenario.
25/ Also shows intent:
26/ Durham wants to also make sure Sussmann doesn't spin as a political witchhunt
27/ And citing Stone case here:
28/ Media conveniently ignores this about Durham:
29/ Yes, Clinton Campaign knew exactly what was going on!
30/ KNEE DEEP:
31/ Again, the gov't believes white papers are false but wisely isn't making that an issue.
32/ I'm confused that Sussmann's attorneys would pen this line given the text message...
33/ So we now know who's notes they were for sure.
34/ This ties in perfectly with my article yesterday. They didn't ask b/c they worked with cyber security folks all the time and trusted them
35/ Imagine that, Sussmann's friend didn't remember what he said
36/ Sussmann wants cases tossed unless Joffe given immunity...
37/ So more details here re the investigation re Joffe:
38/ This will be very interesting when Government responds to these arguments!
39/ Who did they/will they grant immunity to?
40/ Durham trying to get Joffe to cooperate.
40/ So this is what they want Joffe to testify to. Durham hasn't claimed Clinton retained him. All of this seems silly given text Sussmann sent to Durham, which was NOT mentione in indictment, leading me to think it was only discovered on phone OIG had belatedly shared!!
41/ Ha. Sussmann's attorney cite Trump v. Clinton as basis to argue evidence is merely a political hit.
42/ Again this goes to yesterday's article on trust in cyber security experts and the breadth of information they have.
43/ Expert data on this point--in context makes sense...to show motive.
44/ So could "motive" be shown if Sussmann didn't know? Does Durham have evidence that Sussmann knew? OR is it relevant b/c Sussmann allegedly said contacts wanted to remain anon. to show WHY they did?
45/ Wait! @McAdooGordon is that the reasonable inference? That Durham "seeks to call Steele"?
46/ And as @McAdooGordon highlighested soon after the indictment dropped....
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.