Advertisement

Latest News

April 6, 2022
|

There are major updates today concerning the Hunter laptop investigation, with testimony before a Delaware grand jury, and also the Michael Sussmann case, with revelatory new court filings by special counsel John Durham. Honestly, the mountain of information grows day by day, until it seems as if we’re sorting through a stinking landfill with a teaspoon.

In the case against Clinton attorney Sussmann, Durham has seen from defense filings that a significant part of their strategy is to get evidence thrown out as hearsay or otherwise inadmissible. Late Monday, he filed a 48-page motion laying out all the arguments for allowing specific pieces of evidence, including a stunning text message from Sussmann to then-FBI general counsel James Baker that lies to the FBI a SECOND TIME, IN WRITING, about coming to the FBI on his own, not representing any clients. Sussmann apparently lied about this not just during the meeting, but to get the meeting in the first place, so he could feed them the fake Alfa Bank story in furtherance of the Trump/Russia hoax.

As you know, Sussmann is charged with lying to the FBI about the fact that he was representing the DNC, Hillary For America, and tech executive Ron Joffe during his visit. Durham has billing records from Hillary’s law firm Perkins Coie that show he was.

“Jim --- it’s Michael Sussmann,” he texted Baker. “I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m on my own --- not on behalf of a client or company --- want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

(Aside: you better believe it was time-sensitive. The 2020 election was coming up in a couple of weeks, and this story was no doubt timed to be an October surprise.)

Here’s the story from the New York Post, which includes detail about the defense’s motion to exclude some of Durham’s evidence...

https://nypost.com/2022/04/05/clinton-2016-campaign-lawyer-tech-exec-in-joint-venture-to-smear-trump-durham-alleges/

Perhaps Sussmann was not forthcoming with his own attorneys about that text, as one of their arguments last year for Durham not having a case against him was that it was “a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting.” Now they find out their client committed the same lie again –- in writing? Oops!!

Sussmann has already pleaded not guilty. This could get sticky for his attorneys, but, as the saying goes, that’s why they get the big bucks.

Last October, his attorneys said they intended to call Baker as a witness, so the trial could get really interesting when Durham cross-examines. (By the way, guess who Baker works for now? That bastion of truth and free speech, Twitter.)

Durham’s motion, arguing for the inclusion of individual pieces of evidence that might be challenged, is just masterful. Here’s a link to the pdf, and if you have time to go through it and marvel at the care that went into the building of this case, you will be rewarded. Durham has to anticipate every argument the defense might make to exclude each piece and offer the judge legal precedent for including it. What will be especially interesting to the casual reader is not the specific legal precedents regarding hearsay, etc. --- as important as they are for the judge --- but the actual fragments of evidence that are written into the motion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.61.0_1.pdf

The motion gets really interesting when it addresses the more obscure communications between Joffe and others on his tech team. Starting on page 19, under the heading “Emails Involving Tech Executive – 1 and Internet Researchers,” the evidence shows how tenuous the Alfa Bank story really was, and how they went ahead with it anyway, without real evidence. Again, Durham has to make the case that these emails are not hearsay or otherwise inadmissible, because Sussmann’s attorneys will try to get them excluded. To that point, it might be significant that his attorneys are with the firm Latham & Watkins, which represents a number of clients tied to Hillary Clinton.

One key email is on page 25, from “Researcher – 1,” saying in part, “We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny...The only thing that drive[s] us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]...Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision.”

There’s another email on page 27 from “Researcher – 2” that lauds the ability to fool people who aren’t tech experts: “I don’t care in the least whether I’m right or wrong...[Tech Executive – 1”] has crafted a message that could work to accomplish the goals. Weakening that message in any way would in my opinion be a mistake.”

Durham argues that these pieces of evidence are admissible because they “shed important light on the defendant’s and Tech Executive – 1’s ‘intent, motive or state of mind’ and ‘help to explain their future conduct.’” As in, LYING to get the FBI to take this piece of garbage seriously and take Trump down.

In Trump's lawsuit against Hillary, the DNC and others, Trump’s attorney has filed a six-page motion to have the presiding judge disqualified. Recall our bewilderment that a Bill Clinton-appointed judge, US. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, was given this case. Middlebrooks’ prejudice because of his connection to the Clintons is “so virulent or pervasive as to constitute bias against a party,” the motion reads, making reference to a previous case. This issue seems quite clear-cut; no word yet on when the ruling will be made.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-moves-to-disqualify-clinton-appointed-judge-in-lawsuit-against-clinton-dnc

Moving to Hunter Biden, we've known for a long time who "the Big Guy"must be, but the Delaware grand jury looking into his business affairs has finally heard testimony about it. From the New York Post...

https://nypost.com/2022/04/04/hunter-biden-grand-jury-witness-was-asked-about-deal-with-chinese-firm-and-the-big-guy/

Hunter has long been the money man. In 2012, when Joe was VP, Ron Klain, who was then chairman of the Vice President’s Residence Foundation (VPRF), went to Hunter seeking $20,000, apparently for improvements for the official residence. Klain told him to keep it on the “low low key.” Because “raising money for the Residence now is bad PR,” Klain said, he was “hitting up a few very close friends on a very confidential basis.” Just a little side story...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ron-klain-solicited-money-hunter-biden-emails-vp-residence

Also, hate to say this, but being on Hunter’s Secret Service detail is a pretty cushy job. While Hunter cools his heels at a $10,000-a-month Malibu home, his agents are staying at taxpayer expense at a $30,000-a-month beachside estate. Details …

https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/taxpayer-funded-secret-service-shells-out-30000-a-month-on-malibu-mansion-to-protect-hunter-biden/

John Solomon and Seamus Bruner at Just the News have obtained emails and court records showing how Hunter apparently sought to cash in on relationships with Russian oligarchs in 2014, during Russia’s previous invasion of Ukraine.

They write: “The delicate balancing act of cashing in on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides of the conflict left the younger Biden and his partners acutely aware that Moscow’s militry annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean region in 2014 was a wild card that could scuttle the success of their business pursuits.”

The same month that Moscow oligarch Yelena Baturina wired $3.5 million to Hunter’s company, Joe Biden was made “point man” to deal with the chaos in Ukraine. Unbelievable.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/hunter-biden-sought-cash-oligarchs-during-first-russian

Former U.S. attorney Brett Tolman says “anybody else would have been indicted already.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hunter-biden-indictment-family-business-dealings-probe

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Leave A Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

No Comments