Finally got a chance to look at that Durham filing that got MAGAworld all screechy over the weekend.
Lawgeeks, here it is --> scribd.com/document/55851…
Some notes.
Lawgeeks, here it is --> scribd.com/document/55851…
Some notes.
To sum up first: the motion is informing the judge of possible conflicts of interest, and asking for inquiry.
That's not the part that got MAGAworld riled.
That's not the part that got MAGAworld riled.
This is the potentially juicy bit: Durham says Sussman passed on data to the FBI and another agency (probably CIA) suggesting a connection between Trump and some suspect Russia-made phones as part of the broader scheme to connect Trump and Russia in the public eye.
Some notes:
(1) "Infiltration," which zoomed through headlines and seems to be animating many of the subsequent death threats, does not appear in the motion.
(2) The claim that the allegedly false report was ordered by the Clinton campaign also does not appear in the motion.
(1) "Infiltration," which zoomed through headlines and seems to be animating many of the subsequent death threats, does not appear in the motion.
(2) The claim that the allegedly false report was ordered by the Clinton campaign also does not appear in the motion.
(3) Those claims were made by Kash Patel, former stooge for ex-Rep. Nunes, who hmmm inartfully characterized the contents of the motion for FNC. They do not appear in the motion.
(4) From the motion, it appears Sussman is accused of passing on the report about data which was lawfully possessed by all parties.
(5) Durham implies that the report Sussman made was misleading bc it was incomplete, which, dear friends, is a something Durham will have to prove at trial—not something you must take his word for.
In any case, the motion is linked upthread. And here's CNN's write-up over it, including Trump's reaction. cnn.com/2022/02/14/pol…
I don't think it's really bad news for anybody. There's no indication in the motion that the tech company or Sussman weren't supposed to be in possession of that data.
In fact, the motion suggests the tech company had a sensitive, but legal, arrangement to access it.
In fact, the motion suggests the tech company had a sensitive, but legal, arrangement to access it.
https://twitter.com/HeleneBelle10/status/1493405255438118913
That's why Patel's claim that this filing proves that Trump was being spied on is a bit weird.
According to the motion, that data access started back in the Obama White House and had nothing to do with Trump.
According to the motion, that data access started back in the Obama White House and had nothing to do with Trump.
And the hook that Durham used to get this out—that Sussman's lawyers may have a conflict of interest—is itself waivable, and indeed the motion says Sussman will waive any conflict.
Uhh, yeah, there's nothing in the motion about paying hackers to plant evidence, either.
https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1493427506619174914
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
