Tweet
They tyranny continues as Biden Administration creates no fly zone over 10,000 illegal immigrants to spin the truth that the government has failed to solve the border crisis.
-
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh -
Milley said that it had been confirmed that the US killed a terrorist, when it actually killed a bunch or children and an aid worker. Now the investigation of that attack is being reviewed. Maybe we will get to the bottom of this and find out why Milley said that an investigation determined that that was "righteous attack."
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
We need an independent investigation.
Pollak: 10 Civilians Killed in Kabul, 10 Unanswered Questions Biden Must Answer
7,566
Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesJOEL B. POLLAK17 Sep 20211,871
4:47
CENTCOM commander Gen. Frank McKenzie apologized Friday after an investigation revealed that the U.S had killed an innocent man, Zemari Ahmadi — and nine other civilians, including seven children — rather than ISIS-K terrorists Aug. 29.
Though McKenzie accepted responsibility for what he called a “tragic mistake,” he did not resign. Instead, he provided an explanation of the circumstances for the strike, suggesting that the Pentagon believes it was legal under international law.
McKenzie told the media that the military had acted on intelligence that a “white Toyota Corolla” — one of the most common automobiles — would mount an attack. At no point did the military know who was driving the targeted vehicle.
This illustration photo taken in Arlington, Virginia, shows a person watching a video of General Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., US Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander, as he speaks during a news briefing from the Pentagon on August 30, 2021. – The US military announced the departure of the last US troops from Afghanistan on August 30, concluding a 20-year conflict that ended with the Taliban seizing control of the country. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY / AFP) (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
As Breitbart News explained last week: “International law permits the use of such targeted killings, under restricted circumstances. The target must be an enemy combatant; the target generally must pose an imminent or ongoing threat; and the attack must minimize the risk to non-combatants.”
Mistaken identity, or other mistakes, do not by themselves constitute violations of international law, but if the strike was negligent, or improperly motivated, there could be legal consequences.
Under customary international law, the U.S. is required to investigate alleged violations of international law. The Pentagon appears to think it has satisfied that requirement. But there are several questions that still remain about the Aug. 29 strike:
1. What did President Joe Biden know, and did he authorize the strike? White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Aug. 30 that Biden had delegated authority to the military, but was “regularly briefed.” What did he know? Did he give the green light?
2. Were there political motivations behind the strike? Did the White House pressure the Pentagon to come up with some kind of response to the Aug. 26 suicide bombing, to provide political cover for the administration’s bungled withdrawal?
3. Why would the military launch an airstrike against an unknown person, absent compelling evidence of imminent threat? The most shocking aspect of the strike was that the Pentagon did not know who was in the vehicle.
4. Was the U.S. fed bad intelligence by the Taliban or other bad actors? There has long been suspicion that different groups in Afghanistan feed false information to the U.S. to take out their rivals. Is that what happened in the Kabul strike?
5. What does taking “full responsibility”mean? Where are the hearings, resignations, prosecutions, demotions, or firings? McKenzie did not rule out further consequences in his Pentagon press briefing, but declined to lead by example.
TOPSHOT – Afghan residents and family members of the victims gather next to a damaged vehicle inside a house, day after a US drone airstrike in Kabul on August 30, 2021. (Photo by WAKIL KOHSAR / AFP) (Photo by WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP via Getty Images)
6. Why was the U.S. public fed a false story by the Pentagon and the White House for several weeks? The Pentagon said Aug. 30 there was a high degree of confidence in the target; the White House said much the same. Were they lying?
7. Why would the U.S. military settle for an evacuation where it had to rely on airstrikes? The Kabul airport, guarded by the Taliban, was defenseless and left the U.S. few options; given the risks, why did the U.S. abandon Bagram air base?
8. How inaccurate is the U.S. military in general when it comes to airstrikes? The fact that this mistake happened ought to prompt an immediate review of U.S. airstrikes, to determine whether their accuracy can be improved in future.
9. Will this compromise national security by discouraging legitimate, accurate targeted killings? The use of targeted killings — like President Donald Trump’s strike on Qasem Soleimani — is an important tool against terror. Have we lost it?
10. Will the Biden administration apologize to the new Taliban regime, and pay reparations? McKenzie dodged a press question about reparations, but if the Taliban regime presses the U.S. to apologize, it may find international support.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
The federal government put up a fence around the capitol as a prop so that they state media could report that the police are bracing for another January 6th event.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Senator Paul : Did you drone a terrorist or an aid worker?
Blinken: We don't know.
Senator Paul: If you didn't know then why did you kill him?
(Paraphrase)I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Eight Months After January 6, Prosecutors Make Aggressive Maneuvers As Defendant Attempts Suicide, Another Beaten In Jail
By Luke Rosiak
•
Sep 17, 2021 DailyWire.com
•
Facebook
Twitter
Mail
Kiyoshi Tanno / iStock / Getty Images Plus
Some sixty people are still behind bars eight months after the January 6 disturbance at the U.S. Capitol. A Daily Wire review of court records shows unusually aggressive prosecutorial maneuvers, which sometimes brought rebukes by judges.
For example, Jose Padilla has been detained since February. “Padilla is 40 years old and has lived in Tennessee for most of his life. He previously served in the U.S. Army during the Iraq War. After he returned home, he was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) and began receiving disability benefits. Prior to his arrest, he was a stay-at-home dad who managed his family’s household affairs and cared for his three sons during the day while his wife worked as a librarian. He has no criminal history or history of substance abuse. He also has no known ties to extremist groups,” Judge John D. Bates summarized.
Prosecutors argued that his being a stay-at-home dad and veteran were reasons to hold him in jail.
The judge wrote that “the government contended that two features of Padilla’s background favor pretrial detention: (1) his role as a stay-at-home dad, which, according to the government, gives him ‘idle time to . . . engage in conspiracy theories’ and ‘[run] down rabbit holes through social media.’ The Court cannot accept the proposition that stay-at-home parents pose a greater threat to public safety. And although the Court agrees with Judge Faruqui’s statement that, as a former service member, Padilla had every reason to know that ‘what occurred on January 6th was totally unacceptable,’ the fact of military service is complicated and can cut both ways.”
The government also argued that his military service-induced PTSD was a reason to hold him, an assertion that the judge sharply rebutted — pointing out that if the government believed he was a suicide risk, it had done little to ensure he got help in jail.
“The government’s assertion that Padilla’s ‘mental health conditions’ evince a risk of flight is unsubstantiated by the current record. Although Padilla was diagnosed with PTSD following his military service, he has been ‘actively engaged in treatment with a V.A. provider,’ and no other specifics about his mental health status have been provided to the Court,” the judge wrote. “The government also posits that Padilla had suicidal ideations in 2018—a fact that he sharply disputes. But even if that is true, the government admits that he is ‘not currently having suicidal thoughts.’ Nor has the government taken any steps—such as requesting that he receive mental health services in prison or be placed on suicide watch—that would suggest this is a real concern for the government.”
Some of the cases involve physical assaults, while in other cases, the charges are minor. But in most cases, prosecutors’ efforts have been aggressive.
Ryan Samsel, who allegedly pushed a bike rack that was serving as a barricade, purportedly causing it to strike a police officer, was arrested on January 30 and held for seven months without being indicted or having a preliminary hearing, according to court records. He was finally indicted on August 25. By then, he had been held in solitary confinement at a D.C. jail and been beaten. He is now being held in the Central Virginia Regional Jail.
On September 11, his lawyer wrote, “He has been detained since and spent substantial time enduring the torture of solitary confinement… On or about March 21, 2021, Mr. Samsel was viciously assaulted while in the custody of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, and while detained in ‘administrative segregation’—the latest euphemism for solitary confinement. He was taken to Howard University Hospital the next day, on March 22, 2021, where he was admitted and treated for injuries including… bilateral nasal bone fracture… as a result of the brutal assault, Mr. Samsel lost vision in his right eye…. CVRJ Medical Records make clear that medical orders and referrals have been ignored.”
On January 11, another defendant, Jeffrey Sabor, was pulled over in New York “covered in blood” from an alleged suicide attempt. He said “I am tired, I am done fighting,” according to prosecutors.
“On January 12, 2021, law enforcement officers spoke with SABOL while he was recovering at the Westchester Medical Center. SABOL advised that on January 6, 2021, he was at the U.S. Capitol.”
On August 4, a superseding indictment added on more charges to Sabor’s case, charging that he used “a deadly or dangerous weapon, that is, a baton, flag pole, and crutch, did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and interfere with, an officer and employee of the United States.”
Douglas Jensen, who allegedly had a knife at the Capitol, was released from jail, then sent back for violating his terms of release when he was found using a “WiFi-connected iPhone to stream news from Rumble.”
In another case, a judge chided prosecutors for apparent unconcern about the rights of the media.
“On August 19, 2021, the Court issued an arrest warrant for Jonathon Owen Shroyer (a/k/a Jonathan Owen Shroyer), ‘a Texas-based talk-show host associated with the website Infowars.’ The Department of Justice has recently updated its policies on the investigation of media members, noting the importance of a free press to a vibrant democracy. As part of its review, the Court inquired if the Department of Justice had complied with 28 C.F.R. § 50.10, (‘Policy regarding obtaining information from, or records of, members of the news media’). The Department refused to provide an answer on the record,” Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui wrote.
Related: Fifteen More Arrested For January 6 Capitol Riot In August As Internet Sleuths Tell On Acquaintances
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
CIA issued warning that children may have been present during the drone strike.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Biden has refused to fly over 10,000 illegal immigrants under a bridge in Del Rio, Texas back to Haiti.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
This would have been all about a Republican, but since it's Hillary Clinton you hear nothing. Is Eric Trump wrong?
"Where is Hillary Clinton in this conversation? Where's her voice?" he said. "I mean, you better believe, if Donald Trump had one of his lawyers going in to make up lies to the FBI to try and smear another campaign, you would have — you better believe that he would have been on every paper around the world. Where is she? Why isn't she answering these questions?"I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Jen Psaki is almost as stupid as President Mashed Potato Brains.
Psaki asked about image of Border Patrol agent with apparent whip: 'obviously horrific'
White House press secretary Jen Psaki called the images "horrible," but said she could not yet address what the consequences would be.
TAP TO UNMUTESept. 20, 2021, 3:05 PM CDT / Updated Sept. 21, 2021, 12:47 PM CDT
By Dareh Gregorian
White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Monday called images of a U.S. Border Patrol agent on horseback chasing Haitian migrants “horrific,” but declined to say what consequences there should be for his actions.
Psaki was asked repeatedly to comment on "photos of border agents on horseback using what appear to be whips on Haitian migrants" and whether it was appropriate behavior.
"I have seen some of the footage. I don't have the full context. I can't imagine what context would make that appropriate, but I don't have additional details," she told reporters at the daily White House briefing. "I don't think anyone seeing that footage would think it's acceptable or appropriate."
Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas was asked about the photo earlier in the day while visiting Del Rio, Texas, where more than 15,000 mostly Haitian migrants have converged on a border bridge. He said the reporter who asked him about the whip was "assuming the facts," and suggested it was possible the agent was simply holding a long rein.
"To ensure control of the horse, long reins are used but we are going to investigate the facts to ensure that the situation is as we understand it to be and if it's anything different, we will respond accordingly," he said.
Testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Mayorkas said he been "horrified to see the images." "We do not tolerate any mistreatment or abuse of a migrant, period,” he added.
Vice President Kamala Harris told reporters she was "deeply troubled" by the photos and planned to discuss them with Mayorkas. "And I fully support what is happening right now which is a thorough investigation into exactly what is going on there. But human beings should never be treated that way," she said.
A picture by photographer Paul Ratje showed the agent on horseback grabbing one of the migrants as the man tried to cross into the United States from Ciudad Acuña, Mexico, on Sunday. The El Paso Times reported the agent had swung his whip and charged his horse at people trying to cross, shouting, "Let's go! Get out now! Back to Mexico!"
A border patrol agent on horseback tries to stop a Haitian migrant from entering an encampment on the banks of the Rio Grande near the Acuna Del Rio International Bridge in Del Rio, Texas, on Sept. 19, 2021.Paul Ratje / AFP - Getty Images
A Reuters report from the same area described a law enforcement officer using a lariat and whipping it close to the face of a migrant. It's unclear if it was the same agent.
Psaki was pressed repeatedly about the images and asked if the use of whips was something the Biden administration permitted.
Recommended
CULTURE MATTERSLatinos are absent in newsrooms, Hollywood films, new govt. report finds
NATIONAL SECURITYIn tense Blinken meeting, 'Havana Syndrome' diplomats complain of skepticism
She called footage of the incident "horrible to watch," but added "we just have to get more information on that" before she could comment further. Asked if the agent should be fired, she said, "Of course they should never be able to do it again."
In a statement Monday night, the Department of Homeland Security said the agency "does not tolerate the abuse of migrants in our custody and we take these allegations very seriously." The statement said Custom and Border Protection's Office of Professional Responsibility "is investigating the matter and has alerted the DHS Office of Inspector General."
The Homeland Security secretary was joined in Texas by Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz, who defended his agency's use of horses, saying they "play an integral part in the security response."
"We do not know who are the smugglers or who are the migrants, so it's important that those border patrol agents maintain a level of security for both themselves and for the migrant population as they were trafficking back and forth," Ortiz said.
As for the possibility an agent was using a whip, he said, "We'll certainly look into the matter to make sure we do not have activity" that is "unacceptable."
Mayorkas said Tuesday "we look forward to learning the facts that are induced from the investigation. And we will take actions that those facts compel."I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Sussman indictment reads like Durham is going to charge people for conspiracy.
he Sussmann Indictment Reads Like Overts Acts In Furtherance of a Conspiracy - Because That's What It Is.
It does not take 27 pages to allege a "false statement" charge -- but it does if you are alleging a conspiracy to create false documents to influence a federal investigation.
What to make of the indictment by Special Counsel John Durham of former Clinton Campaign attorney Michael Sussmann, a one-time partner in the go-to-for-all-legal-needs Democrat Party law firm of Perkins Coie?
Typically, a “false statement” indictment will consist of a brief description of how the federal investigators came to ask the question, the answer given by the defendant which is alleged to be false, and what a truthful answer would have been.
If you want an example of what a typical such indictment might look like, it’s right there in Sussmann indictment — read paragraph 46:
That is all one needs for a single count indictment charging a defendant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. That paragraph tells the defendant the date and location of the offense and the specifics of the offense conduct.
Paragraphs 1 through 44 were not necessary to charge Sussmann. That makes what Durham returned a “speaking indictment.” It discloses information in a public document that would not otherwise be known if the indictment set forth only facts needed to meet the requirements of due process.
A “false statement” charge does not require a litany of factual allegations regarding the conduct and statements of the defendant and numerous third parties over the course of weeks or months leading up to the making of the false statement. In over 30 years of practice as both a federal prosecutor and a defense attorney specializing in federal cases, I’ve never before seen anything remotely resembling the Sussmann indictment in a single count “false statement” case.
John Durham is far too serious of a career prosecutor, with a very long and established record of meticulous investigation and preparation, to have rolled out an indictment in this fashion if he was intending to wrap up the remainder of his work with a report to the Attorney General.
I’m going to save for another story a comprehensive look at what Durham has alleged in paragraphs 1 through 44. The allegations take my thinking in many different directions at the same time. There are probably a dozen or more “strings” hanging off the facts he has alleged — some legal and some more in the “court of public opinion.”
I waited four days to publish this first piece, spending much of that time going back over the entire “Alfa Bank” story since it first broke in late October 2016, less than 2 weeks before the election. Trying to understand the new information in the indictment against the backdrop of what was uncovered about the original story in 2016 and 2016 — and then cross-referencing the timeline and actors against what is now known about Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Special Counsel Investigation — is a task worthy of a book.
But rather than attempt to make that effort here in one Herculean task, I’m going to address issues that seem meaningful based on everything I’ve read, and roll them out one at a time as I can work through them.
In my view, some of the “hot takes” coming from folks without a working understanding of the process will not age well and I would caution you to take them with a “grain of salt.” For example, the guys at Powerlineblog initially judged the indictment as insignificant but now seem to be changing their view.
I’ve seen many questions raised on social media about why it has taken Durham so long to get to this point if this is the best he was able to come up with. The answer to this question becomes evident when you read the indictment with an eye towards the source material for some of the allegations set forth.
It is certainly true that Durham cast his net of grand jury subpoenas for email communications far and wide based on the number of individuals and entities identified — not necessarily by name — in the indictment. When a prosecutor seeks emails that are more than six months old, he only needs a grand jury subpoena with does not require a showing of “probable cause”.
The sourcing for some of the factual details set forth in the indictment explains at least one cause for why it has taken Durham so long to get to this point. Among the documents referenced in the indictment are billing records and emails of Perkins Coie. I’m confident these were not simply handed over to Durham when he sent a grand jury subpoena to the firm. I’m confident there was a fierce battle over whether Perkins Coie had to produce these records as they involve attorney-client communications and attorney work-product information, both of which would typically be insulated from disclosure to a grand jury.
But you can see from the allegations of the indictment how vital the records were to laying the foundation for the charge — the billing records and emails show Sussmann was working for the “Tech Executive-1” and the Clinton Campaign when he met with FBI General Counsel James Baker on September 19, 2021.
There are a couple angles to this issue, some of which I have covered on Twitter.
First, as part of this fight, I believe it’s highly likely that Durham suggested to the Perkins Coie law firm that the firm itself might be — or is/was — a “target” of the investigation. Sussmann and “Campaign Attorney-1” — presumably Marc Elias based on the description — were doing legal work for firm clients as part of their employment when that legal work crossed the boundary into criminal conduct as alleged with regard to Sussmann at least.
Any corporation can be subject to criminal liability for crimes committed by managers or employees performing work within the course and scope of their employment. One way a corporation can seek to avoid criminal liability is to cooperate completely in the government’s investigation into the suspected criminal conduct of the employees.
There is a DOJ policy on the question of when a business entity should itself be a target of criminal prosecution, and how it might help itself avoid being charged. Among the “Factors to be Considered” are the following:- the corporation’s willingness to cooperate, including as to potential wrongdoing by its agents;
- the corporation’s timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing;
- the corporation’s remedial actions, including, but not limited to, replacing responsible management, and disciplining or terminating wrongdoers;
- the adequacy of the prosecution of individuals responsible for the corporation’s malfeasance.
One way a business organization is tested with regard to these factors is the timing and extent of cooperation the corporation provides to the government investigators:Thus, when the government investigates potential corporate wrongdoing, it seeks the relevant facts. For example, how and when did the alleged misconduct occur? Who promoted or approved it? Who was responsible for committing it?… If a corporation wishes to receive credit for such cooperation … then the corporation … must disclose the relevant facts of which it has knowledge.… A corporation is an artificial construct that cannot, by definition, have personal knowledge of the facts. Some of those facts may be reflected in documentary or electronic media like emails, transaction or accounting documents, and other records. Often, the corporation gathers facts through an internal investigation…. Whichever process the corporation selects, the government's key measure of cooperation must remain the same as it does for an individual: has the party timely disclosed the relevant facts about the putative misconduct?
Given that Marc Elias departed Perkins Coie in a very public manner on August 22, 2021, opening his own law firm with approximately 10 other Perkins Coie attorneys who left with him, and that Michael Sussmann was on leave from the firm until offering his resignation on the day of his indictment, it seems possible that Perkins Coie “passed” the test of “replacing responsible management, and disciplining or terminating wrongdoers.”
It might very well be the case that Perkins Coie — the law firm — did not engage in any protracted fight on its own behalf with the Durham investigation over the firm’s business records. But that would not have been the end of the battle.
The indictment alleges that the DNC, the Clinton Campaign, and Tech Executive-1 were all clients of the Perkins Coie firm for whom Sussman and others did legal work. To one degree or another, the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work-Product privileges would have applied to many/most of the records that Durham references in the indictment. The “privilege” belongs to the clients. Waiving privilege in order to show cooperation with Durham was not something that Perkins Coie could do on its own — the clients had the legal right to assert the privilege and attempt to keep the records out of Durham’s hands.
In no universe I can imagine would the DNC, Clinton Campaign, and/or Tech Executive-1 have waived Attorney-Client privilege and allowed Perkins Coie to turn over privileged documents and communications.
You might wonder how such a battle might play itself out in the courts without anyone knowing it was taking place. I haven’t seen this question posed, but unless you have worked inside this process the answer is not obvious.
This indictment was returned in the District of Columbia. But it has been reported that Durham had more than one grand jury convened, including one across the Potomac River in the Eastern District of Virginia. Depending on where activity making up his investigation took place, he could have grand juries in other districts as well — such as maybe the EDNY or SDNY.
A grand jury subpoena for Perkins Coie records could have originated from any district where Durham had a grand jury convened. Any fight over compliance with such a subpoena would have taken place in the district of the grand jury issuing the subpoena. Given the total silence about this aspect of the investigation until just recently, my guess is that a fight over Perkins Coie documents did not take place in the District of Columbia.
Disputes over the production of documents to a federal grand jury — and I was involved in just such a matter earlier this year — take place behind closed doors. Pleadings filed by each side are not part of the court’s public docket, and hearings are conducted in closed proceedings.
The age of COVID makes this easier as attorneys don’t even come to the courthouse for hearings. To conduct a hearing the court simply issues a notice and password for a Zoom meeting or some other videoconference. Only the attorneys and court personnel are part of the call. All references to the dispute — including the outcome and the Court’s order — are sealed.
Appeals from district court orders are handled in the same fashion when it comes to fights over grand jury records — everything is done under seal and out of public view.
On what basis then was it likely determined by a court that the attorney-client privilege did not apply and Perkins Coie had to disclose the records? That is the proverbial “$64,000 Question” that we won’t know the answer to for some time. But the most likely justification for ordering production of the records to Durham was the “crime-fraud” exception to the Attorney-Client privilege.
Simply stated, the exception applies when the communications or records at issue involve a future crime or fraud under consideration or a crime or fraud that is currently underway and continuing. The focus of the inquiry is on the client’s intent, not the attorney’s intent. The attorney-client privilege will be negated by the crime-fraud exception regardless of whether the attorney is aware of, or involved in, the client’s crime or fraud.
Noteworthy is the fact that the exception only applies, and records or communications are not protected by the privilege, if the CLIENT is engaged in planning future crimes or frauds, or is seeking legal assistance in ongoing crimes or frauds.
That means that if Durham obtained privileged records on the basis of the crime-fraud exception, whatever court sustained his subpoena would have done so because Durham demonstrated to the court’s satisfaction that the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1 were themselves engaged in the criminal conduct along with Sussmann, their attorney.
And maybe the DNC too. Think about that.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow grand jury materials obtained as part of an investigation in one federal judicial district to be made available to investigators and prosecutors involved in another investigation in a different judicial district. The fact that the Perkins Coie records might have been obtained by a grand jury outside the District of Columbia does not limit the use of those records, and they could be used by a grand jury in the District of Columbia.
Buried in the indictment was a reference I first pointed out on Twitter — I have not seen any Tweet that noted it earlier than I did — what is a likely indicator of another investigation in a different judicial district.
- On or about February 8, 2017, SUSSMANN met with two Agency-2 employees …at a location outside the District of Columbia…
The indictment goes on to allege that at this meeting Sussmann repeated the same false statement to these two individuals that he made to the FBI in September.
If this second misrepresentation is to be charged by Durham as another “false statement”, such a charge would be in an indictment obtained in the federal district court for the location where it was made — outside the District of Columbia.
It is entirely possible — more likely probable — that fights over Durham’s grand jury subpoenas have taken place in a federal district court other than the District of Columbia.
Final note for this first article — and as a tease for the second one I have in mind — venue for a conspiracy charge can be had in any federal judicial district where any act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred.
What that means is that it does not matter if most of the conduct involved in a conspiracy that Durham might charge hereafter took place in the District of Columbia. Any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, taken by any conspirator, provides a basis for venue of a criminal indictment in the federal district court where the act took place.
My supposition from all I’ve read is that “Agency-2” referenced in the Indictment is likely the CIA. CIA Headquarters is located in Langley, Virginia. That location is in the Eastern District of Virginia. Any criminal act at or near the CIA Headquarters would be “outside the District of Columbia” as noted in Paragraph 42 above.
There is no obvious purpose for this specificity or a reference to a second false statement other than to suggest another overt/criminal act by Sussmann which takes the conspiracy outside the District of Columbia and extends the timeline for the continuing existence of a conspiratorial agreement into early 2017 — at least.
Next — a primer on the law of “conspiracy” in federal criminal prosecutions.
Remember this blast from the past?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Whistleblower says that Facebook knows that the the CCP is using it's apps to track Uyghurs.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Re Sussmann, that isn't a sign of things going deeper, but it may be a knock against Sussmann. It seems unlikely to hold though
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/durham...ation-n1279490 (Note that it comes across as a hack piece, so I don't like it and I don't like MSNBC)
Namely due to Baker (the one who Sussmann allegedly lied to)
"In a closed-door meeting with Congress in 2018, Baker testified that he did not recall whether Sussmann had represented himself as working on behalf of the Democratic Party or Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."
" In his 2018 congressional testimony, Baker was asked whether it would have mattered if Sussmann had told him he was there on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. He said it wouldn’t, a devastating admission for Durham’s case."
"And based on the assistant director’s notes, it appears that Sussmann did tell Baker that he “represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.”"
Finally, as noted, the FBI Russian investigation started much earlier, so it couldn't have been initiated by Sussmann presentation to Baker.
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.Comment
-
Well it's ridiculous to trust anything by MSNBC. They are obviously part of the hoax, as was Mueller. I don't know how you can be fooled for this long. Maybe you really aren't.Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
But it's true that the investigation started before Sussmann lied to the FBI. That's actually evidence that Durham is making a case for criminal conspiracy, because Sussman might not even be found guilty of criminal lying.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Joy Reid: I had no idea that people had whips, too whip people.
Maybe people should keep their fool mouth shut if they are that stupid.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
Comment