Thread by @DawsonSField

9 new documents in the Durham case against Hillary's lawyer Sussmann!
Now we know why Sussmann's attorneys conceeded in the hearing last week that he lied to the FBI & focused only on materiality!

It's gonna be a long thread!
#ButNothingsHappening #DurhamIsComing

First doc is just Sussman's sealed response to Durham's classified information redactions.
Sussmann's team is almost certainly demanding more evidence be declassified or the case dismissed if they don't declassify it.
It's been SCO's trap all along!
courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

Everytime Sussmann's team demands the case be dropped for lack of information on the record, Durham's team responds by releasing more information that is damning to their client, & his clients & friends!

Next is Sussmann's team requesting the judge prohibit Durham from using documents that are partially redacted for attorney client privilege.
They have a decent legal case on this one, BUT, SCO has already stated they are objecting to the privilege claims.
courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

Sussmann's team found out that SCO was planning to call witnesses who were claiming attorney client privilege on 3/30/22.
So they were not expecting these witnesses to testify against Sussmann & thought it would be hidden by ACP.

This is very important because Perkins Coie lawyers got the DNC & Hillary campaign to confess to illegally laundering money through Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS for this oppo research effort.
Making the communications part of a crime & not privileged!

So by demanding that the redacted attorney client privilege documents be suppressed, they now open the door to Durham arguing that ACP should be revoked for the crime fraud exemption & the unredacted documents used instead!

Sussmann is also asking the judge to order Durham to not call any witnesses that are either the attorneys or clients who might assert privilege during the trial.

Which clients are asserting attorney client privilege to keep their lawyers at Perkins Coie from testifying.
Rodney Joffe, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, & another political organization that is almost certainly the DNC but there have been plot twists before...

Sussmann's lawyers claim that Durham intends to use the exercise of attorney client privilege (which likely doesn't exist anyway) to convince the jury into thinking Hillary, Joffe & the DNC are asserting privilege to hide evidence of their guilt while blaming Sussmann for it.

So by complaining about SCO's intent to submit redacted information to protect privileged information, they are opening the door to Durham's argument that the information is not privileged because it was the commission of a crime. Fraud to hide HRC's payments to Fusion GPS.

Next up is a motion to block the use of notes about the Sussmann meeting by FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap & FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson.
Both seemed to develop amnesia when testifying to Durham's investigators.
courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

Sussmann's team is using their amnesia to justify not allowing Durham to use their notes or to allow Baker to testify about briefing Priestap & Anderson about the meeting with Sussmann.

Both Anderson & Priestap took notes from seperate meetings with Baker that indicate that Sussmann lied to Baker & claimed he was not representing a client while bringing the Alfa Bank DNS data to him.

They try to use Sussmann's word games abut his clients to create doubt about whether he lied to Baker in the meeting. They don't want Baker to be able to testify about telling Priestap about the meeting & confirming the notes on the stand!

It really sounds like both Priestap & Anderson's testimony to Durham was designed to undermine the evidence of Sussmann's lies to Baker.
Sussman's lawyers try to claim it isn't clear who "him" is that told Baker he had no client at the meeting.

#BSDetector!

Sussmann's team is asking the judge to reject the use of the notes & Baker testifying about the notes as his back up to support his claim that Sussmann claimed he was not representing Joffe, Clinton & the DNC.

The judge will probably allow the notes, but there is other proof!

Trying to claim Priestap may have added the phrase "said not doing this for any client" in heavy diagonal script at later time, now when Baker told him.
Sure, people make a big stand out quote because it was the most important part of the meeting!

I don't think the amnesia defense is going to work out well for Sussmann.

But that is is only defense at this point!

Back to the claim that the notes don't identify Sussmann as the "he" who told Baker that he represented no client in bringing the information to a meeting in which only HE & Baker were in attendance!
Wonder who that he or him could be... 😂🤣😂🤣

LOL, now claiming that the notes might confuse the jury who couldn't possible figure out who "he" was that told Baker he wasn't representing a client in a meeting between only Baker & Sussmann.
If Priestap & Anderson are confused, of course the jury would be confused about the HE

It might work, but I doubt it...

I'm sure the judge isn't confused about who "he" was that met with Baker during a meeting between Sussmann & Baker...

Next up, Sussmann requesting that the judge dismiss the case unless Durham grants immunity to Rodney Joffe. Because they claim Sussmann can't get a fair trial without his testimony, & Joffe is taking the 5th unless he gets a get out of jail free card.
courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

Sussmann's team claims Joffe is the cornerstone of Durham's case, but that he is taking the 5th.
That Joffe would testify his work had nothing to do with the Hillary Clinton campaign.
But either way that means Sussmann lied if he met with FBI for Joffe not Hillary.

Joffe's emails show he was expecting a job in the Clinton Administration for helping her win. So the claim is very disingenuous.

Joffe expected a reward from HRC & Democrats for his work on the Alfa Bank issue. So his testimony would not help Sussmann at all.

It also brings an interesting billing fraud angle too.

If Sussman was representing Sen. John McCain's pal Rodney Joffe in the meeting but billed it to put Hillary's fingerprints on the frame up of Baker, that opens this Durham case far wider...

Claiming that Durham is threatening to prosecute Joffe, just to keep him from exonerating Sussmann.

Pretending that there is no real legal case against Joffe so SCO should give him immunity.

If there was no criminal case against Joffe, why does Joffe need immunity?

This may force the judge to rule that the threat to prosecute Joffe is proper!

Trying to get the judge to force Durham to choose between letting Sussmann get away with his crimes or letting Joffe get away with his crimes.

I doubt this will get far.

Making false allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against Durham to try & protect Sussmann & his clients.
Too bad so many MAGA people have aided & abetted this tactic by believing fake allegations of DOJ misconduct in other cases. But I doubt the judge will buy this nonsense.

Whining that SCO won't tell Joffe's lawyer about what crimes they think he committed & what evidence they have on him.

Which is why he wants to invoke the 5th rather than get caught lying on the stand to protect Sussmann.

Durham claiming that the statute of limitations for Joffe's crimes did not expire in Feb. 2022 because the crimes continued after that.
Those who told you Durham let them all go by not indicting by that date were incorrect, as I said at the time.
SCO has years of cases to bring!

These revelations are important, because it is a big red flag that Durham's case is broader than Sussmann's defense can imagine.
Going to fraud in access to that Yotaphone data through access to government provided data outside the scope of the contracts Joffe & Neustar.

Durham has given immunity to 1 witness & considering it for another also.
Sussmann's team claims they are peripheral to the lying to the FBI charge. So that may be the researchers that Joffe had conduct the spying upon Trump & others.

I think this gives Durham the opportunity to argue that Joffe's crimes are separate from Sussmann's crimes. So they are not relevant to Sussmann's case.
So he didn't charge him along with Sussmann on the lying charge because his charges are different...

Sussmann's team arguing that Joffe would testify that Sussmann wasn't trying to commit fraud upon the govt by hiding their relationship to the data. They were merely trying to help the govt, which contradicts the reasons to hide Joffe's involvement.

IS it plausible that they might convince the judge?

Maybe, but Durham will get to respond & I'm sure he will be able to rebut the false claims of prosecutorial misconduct...

Letter from Joffe's lawyer Steven Tyrell to Sussmann's most compromised lawyer Michael Bosworth explaining why Joffe is taking the 5th because Durham won't immunize him from prosecution.
courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

Sussmann next moves to prevent Durham's prosecutors from using evidence or testimony about the Alfa Bank Data, it's 'accuracy', analysis or the Steele Dossier in his trial to help prove his motive for lying to the FBI.
courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

So after claiming Durham is involved in prosecutorial misconduct in one motion, Sussmann's team demands Durham not talk about crimes committed by Joffe or Steele during his trial as he wasn't part of their conduct!

Claiming that Sussmann's alleged crimes of lying to the FBI to trick them into investigating the Alfa Bank Trump connections should not explore how that data was faked to attempt to trick the FBI into investigating Trump.

I find the claim that Sussmann had no knowledge that Steele was providing information to the FBI to be laughable. Maybe this will force Durham to produce such evidence & evidence that Sussmann knew the data was fake all along.

This also invites the SCO to produce evidence that the campaign to frame the FBI for investigating Trump was a full court press by Sussmann, Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, the DNC & Hillary's campaign.
That the efforts to provide evidence to FBI, CIA & the media were collusion...

Trying to argue that because Durham didn't charge him with his role in the conspiracy, yet, that Durham has to pretend the conspiracy didn't exist during the trial.

Another clear invitation for Durham to produce evidence of Sussmann's knowledge of the conspiracy if he has it...
They should realize by now that this is another trap they have fallen into...

This is doomed, it is clearly relevant for explaining Sussmann's motive to lie about his clients, if his clients improperly accessed classified government databases to spy upon candidate Trump & 7 associates.

Inviting Durham to respond with evidence that Sussmann knew Joffe was exploiting data & concealed Joffe's involvement to hide that he was violating contracts with DOD, the EOP & others to spy upon Trump for Hillary's campaign.

Trying to prevent Durham from presenting evidence & testimony that the data linking Alfa Bank & a non-Trump owned Trump email account service was not accurate & reliable when Sussmann took it to FBI & CIA.

Sussmann's attorneys arguing against bringing in the Steele Dossier & it's efforts to dupe the FBI on behalf of Sussmann's law firm Perkins Coie.

Claiming that Durham intends to call Steele at trial to testify. Also noting they handed over Steele interview notes in discovery!

Sussmann is treading on thin ice here...
In late July 2016, Elias asked Sussmann to meet with Steele to assess him & his trustworthiness to participate in the HRC oppo research campaign for Perkins Coie. Sussmann gave Baker a Fusion GPS report on Alfa based upon a Steele's memo.

There was clearly collusion between Joffe's efforts to find information on Alfa Bank & Steele's belated interest in Alfa Bank. With Sussmann being the contact between both of them for HRC's special project. Both of which Sussmann gave to Baker to trick FBI into opening a case.

In the indictment, SCO alleges that Sussmann wrote the final version of the Alfa Bank DNS White Paper. He can't claim to have not known about it if he was rewriting the work in a way to trigger the FBI into investigating Alfa Bank.

They clearly don't want Durham to confuse the jury with facts that might make them want to punish Sussmann for being part of a larger conspiracy than just the lying to the FBI charge. But his participation shows WHY he lied to the FBI so it is very relevant.

But the fact Sussmann concealed his client to conceal the larger conspiracy is relevant.
It clearly shows why he had intent to lie to Baker to hide the conspiracy that resulted in the evidence he was trying to foist onto Baker & the FBI.

Sussmann is going to regret not firing his lawyers.
They are claiming Joffe did not produce the report for Sussmann.
But Joffe provided the report to Sussmann as a draft & Sussmann twisted it to get it into a format that he thought would be better to trick the FBI.

The communications that Joffe, DNC & the HRC Campaign are shielding under Attorney Client Privilege will likely show these claimes to be false. That this was coordinated. This is inviting the judge to pierce the attorney client privilege...

As Sussmann helped draft the analysis, the fact that it is an inaccurate analysis is certainly relevant to explain why he concealed that he & Joffe produced the White Paper while telling FBI it came from the academics at Georgia Tech...

Just like most fake claims in legal filings, Sussmann's attorneys are pretending that the SCO doesn't have a reason for doing what he is doing. Then speculating that he has some nefarious reason for planning to bring evidence to trial.

Sussmann's attorney's pretending not to understand the case that Joffe & Sussmann wrote the White Paper but credited it to the academics at Georgia Tech to hide their own involvement in this.

This makes me wonder why false narrative accounts have focused so much on Georgia Tech researchers as the bad guys not Joffe & Sussmann?
Were they set up like Baker? Used by Joffe & Sussmann with no clue they'd be left holding the bag when prosecutors came calling...

Sussmann interviewed Steele at Elias's request to see if he was the right person to participate in HRC's special project to frame Trump for colluding with Alfa Bank.
So the fact that Steele produced an Alfa Bank memo after they met is relevant to Sussmann's knowledge of the plot.

Even trying to get the judge to strike all of these issues out of the indictment returned by the grand jury. So that the jury won't know about the larger plot outlined in that speaking indictment.

Next document is just a copy of the indictment followed by a proposed order to strike.
courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

At last we get to Durham's motions!

But I have meetings to attend & will have to get back to it when I can.
courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…

I have a little time to start on Durham's motions.
Asking for 4 lines of evidence to be authorized.
The FBI notes, emails in the indictment & similar ones, Sussmann's meeting with CIA, Congressional testimony, & Perkins Coie's false statements to the media from Oct. 2018, plus

One of Hillary's mean tweets about Trump & the Russians!

Also asking that Sussmann's counsel be prohibited from making any argument accusing Durham of political bias during the case.

I've broken down the factual background from the indictment & the other filings so I am only going to point out new information in this.

One completely new piece of evidence is a text from Sussmann to Baker asking for the meeting & claiming he was not representing a client! The exact lie he is charged with!

Why didn't we hear this before?
And why did Sussmann's lawyers concede that he lied to Baker last week?

Most likely, both are because this text was found on Baker's phone that was held by OIG. A text that clearly shows Sussmann lied to Baker about his clients.
Why didn't FBI's Inspection Div. find this text when they referred Baker to Durham for prosecution?

Was it because Neustar & Rodney Joffe provided inaccurate call & text information to FBI?
Did they delete this to protect Sussmann or themselves?
Good thing OIG had that phone secured & gave it to Durham's team!

Sussmann's now claims he was representing Joffe not Clinton when he met with Baker. But he helped his current lawyers & his former employer Perkins Coie write statements denying that he was working for Hillary when he met Baker. But he billed her for it!

Here's a copy of Priestap's note on the meeting.
Noting Sussmann's false claims of not doing this for a client & that Trump was communicating with a foreign power.

Sussmann was clearly trying to blame the cyber academics for the information, not Joffe who was pressuring them into doing the spying upon Trump claiming it would help them get a big contract with DARPA for NSA.

SCO presumes Sussmann's defense will argue against Baker's memory of Sussmann's lies to him. Notes will confirm he told 2 senior FBI personnel about Sussmann's false statement. Sounds like they will be called as witnesses if necessary.

Arguing that the emails between Joffe, researchers & Fusion GPS on the grounds that they are being admitted "as co-conspirator statements made in furtherance of a joint venture."

Asking the judge to admit the emails by a ruling finding that they are evidence of a conspiracy.

Even if the goals of the conspiracy is not criminal, it is a joint venture and thus a conspiracy under the rules of evidence to use the conspirators emails as evidence!

Asking the judge to rule that Sussmann, Joffe, & agents of the Clinton Campaign were involved in a conspiracy (criminal or otherwise) "acting in concert" to assemble & spread derogatory info about Trump & his associates to the media & the US government!

That their 'conspiracy' was a project involving agents of the Clinton Campaign, Perkins Coie & Joffe to create a narrative where everyone would infer that there was a relationship between Trump & Russia.
That Joffe participated to please Sussmann, Elias & the Clinton Campaign!

Also recall that days before this 'conspiracy' formed, Joffe's employer Neustar was notified by the Obama Admin that they were going to take a $600M contract away from Neustar that gave them access to almost every phone record in North America.

The CEO from Joffe's Internet Company 2 (Packet Forensics (IIRC) may be one of the individuals with immunity. He appears to have testified to the grand jury about his phone calls with Joffe about the project as cited by Durham below.

So they didn't call there effort Spygate, they called it "Crimson Rhino" as the codename for #Spygate2016

Certainly sounds like a 'conspiracy' to me...

Several central figures including Sussmann, Elias & Joffe. Including using a $17M federal cyersecurity contract as bait to convince the researchers to participate in Operation Crimson Rhino.

A 'conspiracy' whose emails are currently protected by claims of Attorney Client Privilege.

Claims negated by the Clinton Campaign & DNC pleading guilty to illegally laundering money through Perkins Coie to pay Fusion GPS for their part in #OperationCrimsonRhino.

Following the Perkins Coie emails, Joffe began communicating directly with Fusion GPS.

Kaboom
Sussman's attorneys claim he had nothing to do with the Steele Dossier. Steele has testified under oath that Sussmann told him about the Alfa Bank allegations & that Fusion GPS tasked him to investigate them.

Steele then took the allegations about Alfa Bank to Jon Winer/Susan Kovalec at Dept. of State while Glen Simpson gave them to Bruce Ohr at DOJ.

Sussman also billed HRC for spreading this info to the media, before he claims he was giving it to the FBI out of patriotic duty...

Sussman informed Elias of his progress on the project who in emails still withheld for Attorney Client Privilege, Elias informed the Clinton Campaign about #OperationCrimsonRhino

Sussmann's lawyers tried claiming that Sussmann had no involvement in the data taken to Baker.
But Durham says he will present evidence at trial that Sussmann helped draft the white paper that was provided to Baker.
He also billed Hillary for writing it!

Researcher 2 is likely the other candidate for immunity.

Sussmann contacted him referrencing Joffe to get the researcher to say the info was collected legally (CYA for Sussmann).
Then had the researcher talk to the media.

As previously noted, Sussmann provided 3 documents to Baker to make the claim of Russian Collusion.
One he & Joffe wrote, one written by Researcher-2, & the 3rd written by Fusion GPS while Perkins Coie was illegally serving as a conduit to conceal HRC & DNC were paying for it.

The Clinton Campaign then shared the results of their own oppo research campaign on Twitter, tweets Durham has asked the judge for permission to use as evidence against Sussmann.

Wrapping it all up in a bow with Joffe's email stating that Democrats offered him the top cybersecurity job in the Clinton Administration had she won.
Making them all co-conspirators under the ruled of evidence even if they have not been charged with conspiracy.

Joffe & Originator-1 (believed to be April Lorenzen) attempted to convince the researchers that Trump & his associates were national security threats to get them to participate in #OperationCrimsonRhino.

Lorenzen makes clear they are only seeking an 'inference' of connects between Trump & Russia so that Joffe can take it to someone else.
Even discussing how this spying on Trump will be add to info that Hillary's oppo research, journalists & govt investigators might find.

So in addition to Joffe's work, they were using names from a redacted person or company's work. Almost certainly work product from Fusion GPS maybe even Nellie Ohr that was used to identify targets to spy upon.

Durham notes that he is not submitting the emails as evidence to prove the claims within them, which might be ruled hearsay, but to prove that the conspirators were working together to further this plan to create a collusion narrative about Trump.

To prove that Sussmann's motive in lying the FBI General Counsel James Baker, was to deceive the FBI about the sources & reasons for bringing this information to the FBI in an effort to trigger an investigation of Alfa Bank connections.

That the emails show co-conspirators discussing that Joffe was tasked by VIPS at Perkins Coie & the CLinton Campaign to assemble & disseminate fake news about Trump...

Durham notes that Joffe spread the information even knowing their were serious doubts about the information. Further showing that his actions were part of the conspiracy to disseminate the information for VIPS at Perkins Coie & in the Clinton Campaign.

The researchers were spying on DNS traffic, not mank transactions, so claiming Trump's privacy rights disappear because of an 'inference' of criminality doesn't pass the smell test.
Especially if you know that Trump is the FBI's #1 undercover asset identifying money laundering.

Lorenzen accomplishing part of the conspiracy by convincing the researchers to not water down the findings & undermine Joffe's carefully designed actions to make it look like Trump was colluding with Alfa Bank.

Durham says that they are not going to use the emails to prove that the claims are so weak that they can't face public scrutiny. Now will they use them to prove that Trump & friends were "ordinary thugs".
They will use them to prove they conspired with Sussmann to do the research

The emails are also evidence because they prove intent, motive, state of mind & future actions of the conspirators.
That the low quality of the evidence was the reason they concealed their own involvement in producing the evidence. Necessitating lying to the FBI!

That Sussmann & Joffe knew their White Paper was garbage, but wrote that there was no plausible explanation other than illegal collusion with Alfa Bank in a criminal enterprise. That the existence of the doubts in emails could have made Joffe & Sussmann hide the truth from FBI

The emails reflect a conspiracy to disseminate information for political purposes.
In February, the DNC & Clinton Campaign admitted to illegally laundering money through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS to hide from the Federal Election Commission that they paid for that conspiracy!

That's all I have time to thread today, will wrap it up in the morning.

Time to finish.
Now Durham is arguing that Fusion GPS's emails are part of the conspiracy & admissible under the federal rules of evidence.

Will anyone notice when the judge rules the effort to frame Trump was a conspiracy to assemble & disseminate information for the election?

But despite Fusion GPS's efforts, reporters thought the Alfa Bank DNS information wouldn't fly even as fake news.
So Fusion sent them to Researcher 2 (working for Sussmann's client Joffe) to convince them.
Apparently that worked & the #fakenews was published...

Fusion colluded with reporters to push Sen. Harry Reed's claims attempting to frame Comey & the FBI for obstructing the investigation of Trump.
They never thought Trump would win, but they needed an excuse to fire Comey for blocking McCabe's Russia investigation.

The pressure campaign against the FBI also included reporters calling Baker, to ask him about the White Papers Sussman gave him. Later Baker was falsely accused of leaking info to the reporters, copies of the White Papers provided by Fusion GPS to the reporters.

Comey's FBI responded to the pressure campaign by contacting the New York Times & convincing them to ignore Sussmann, Simpson & Steele.
So NYT's instead published a story stating FBI found no evidence of collusion!
nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/…

If you haven't figured out Comey & the FBI sabotaged the conspiracy to influence the 2016 election yet, the evidence has been out there for several years.

Fusion GPS's Russian expert told us who twarted their conspiracy to disseminate information to prevent Trump from winning!

I can't wait to see if any of these 'privileged' emails discuss the effort to pressure FBI into confirming the investigation of Trump, and how that backfired on them!

SCO asks the judge to rule that Fusion's emails constitute communications in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Durham's prosecutors intend to use Fusion GPS's emails to prove that the fake news about Alfa Bank was a coordinated smear campaign by Sussman, Joffe, Georgia Tech researchers, the Clinton Campaign, & Fusion GPS.

Asking the judge to allow Sussmann's later acts to further the conspiracy, including Perkins Coie's false statements to the media about who Sussmann was working for when he met with Baker.

SCO argues that Sussmann's later "crimes, wrongs or acts" are admissible as they prove his motive & intent that the crime charged was not a mistake or oversight.
That he committed further actions to hide Hillary was his client including lying to Congress, lying to CIA, & fake PR.

As with his meeting with Baker, Sussmann gave CIA surveillance data from Joffe's spying on Trump.
Hiding that Joffe was his client to conceal who was spying on Trump.
Illegally spying on the President of the United States is a clear motive to conceal his client.

Durham is also investigating that because the data that Joffe had Sussmann provide to the CIA was not routine.
In fact, NSA refused to look at the data because it was illegal for NSA to look at the results of spying that Joffe & Sussmann conducted.

Durham intends to call CIA Employee-2 to testify against Sussmann. To establish that it wasn't an accident when he lied to Baker at FBI. Because he told the same lies to CIA to conceal his client was illegally spying upon the President through access provided by fed contracts.

That Sussmann's lies to the CIA were part of the same plan, venture, conspiracy...
That they show his intent to trick the federal government into investigating Trump by concealing who his clients were...

Seeking to admit Perkins Coie issuing a false statement that Sussmann was not working for Hillary Clinton for similar reasons.
That Sussmann concealed from Perkins Coie that he billed Hillary for the meeting & shows his pattern of concealing his clients for the Baker meeting.

I'm not convinced that Perkins Coie (and the conflicted lawyers at Latham & Watkins) did not know that HRC's campaign had been billed.
They should have at a minimum checked their own records to see who Sussmann billed for that time.

Durham is also requesting to use Sussmann's testimony to Congress in Dec. 2017.
Where Sussmann admitted to meeting Baker on behalf of a client (Joffe but unnamed) but lied under oath by not identifying the Hillary Campaign as the client he represented at the FBI meeting.

Plans to use the Congressional testimony to prove Sussmann lied to FBI & CIA & admitted that crime by noting he was there for Joffe.
Also plan to use it to prove the continuing pattern of concealing he was working as part of a conspiracy for Hillary & billed her for the meeting.

Durham asking the judge to prohibit Sussmann's lawyers from making false allegations that the prosecution or Durham are politically motivated. They'll almost certainly win on this issue.

Durham asking the judge to admit tweets by the Clinton Campaign to prove that they were participants & beneficiaries of the conspiracy to assemble & disseminate negative information against then candidate Trump to influence the election.

"Newspaper-1" is the New York Times, posted that article earlier in this thread!

Here's real collusion, or a conspiracy or joint venture as Durham names it.

Clinton Campaign disseminating the proceeds of the conspiracy to trick voters into thinking FBI was investigating Trump.

Which always makes me wonder why 6 years later, people still believe the fake news produced by this conspiracy that falsely claimed FBI was investigating Donald Trump?

Durham argues the tweets & fake news articles are admissible, not as truth, but for the effect they had tricking readers of those news articles.

They show Sussmann lied to FBI, to further a Clinton Campaign conspiracy to trick voters into thinking FBI was investigating Trump.

Which is the crux of the matter, Sussmann committed crimes to trick people into thinking FBI was investigating Trump.
That Hillary & the DNC paid to trick you into thinking FBI was out to get Trump.
Sussmann is going to be convicted for this, but many still believe his narrative.