New filing from Special Counsel Durham and it’s vexing and arguably untimely. Updated with Pelosi

I see that John Durham’s QANON-sense mask has fully slipped off —his April 23rd filing is one of the shittiest filings I’ve read in a long time. His NEW theory is dripping in QANON-sense.

Apologies — I had to take Thursday and Friday off, as my inbox was filling up at a rapid speed that I opted to make a decision to not publish for those two days. I’d rather have quality then quantity but I also didn’t have the energy for my extracurricular Substack activities. Again I apologize for going dark for a few days. By Thursday AM I had over 1,109 unopened emails. But now that it’s the weekend — I have a bit of free time and I very much enjoy quoting biblical passages back at Marco Rubio. He’s not allowed to stereotype Rep Val Demings as an “angry black woman who’s failed” —NOPE not on my watch. Falsely touting his PPP votes -you dingleberry did you not think someone would be “googling” your braggadocios social media post?

• https://floridapolitics.com/archives/335486-rubio-ppp-pause-smart/

• His January 6, 2021 Tweet after Trump’s deadly mob

file411_dc

A post shared by File411 (@file411_dc)

• Or your April 2020 Statement concerning the PPP program

“We are seeing a rate of $3.5 billion an hour on a nearly $350 billion program. We have days, not weeks, until PPP runs out of money. Today’s  unemployment numbers remind us that now is not the time for congressional horse trading or partisan politics. Small businesses are being forced to lay off employees and close their doors. I really hope my Democratic colleagues will reconsider their decision to block more money for PPP.”

So yes occasionally I can be political on my Instagram account -and let me tell you —countless years of CCD and Catholic Boarding School —I can whip out biblical quotes like a preacher’s wife… but let’s talk about Durham’s April 23, 2022 filing (see ECF)

Prerequisite case filing: background

I’ll keep repeating this, because it’s critical important; when viewing the USA v Sussman Criminal Case, it’s best to refrain from reading (any new) filing in a vacuum. Best practices require an individual to look at the arch of this case and then make an informed opinion based on the

• April 18, 2022—Judge denies Defendant Sussman’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment. BUT there’s oh so much more…

• April 18, 2022 —Defendant Sussman Opposition to Special Counsel Durham’s 11th hour “whatcha talkin’ ‘bout 3rd party attorney client privilege…Willis”

• April 20, 2022 —Judge holds Emergency Hearing at the request of Defendant Sussman -updated

• February 1, 2022 —(this particular article dives into the apparent misstep by Special Counsel Durham —where he FAILED to acknowledging that the DOJ-OIG had informed them they had Baker’s 2 cell phones): Special Counsel Durham “has no current recollection” Defendants Sussman & Danchenko case updates

Judge holds Emergency Hearing at the request of Defendant Sussman -updated

The determinative outcome of Doc # 64 and Defendant Sussman’s recent filings —which ushered in the actual 3rd party privilege holders. Again even if <5% of what Defendant Sussman alleged (in his April 18, 2022 -Response to Special Counsel Durham’s Doc # 64) —to be clear Sussman does not hold the attorney client and work product doctrine privilege —that privilege is retained by:

• Perkins Coie LLC

• DNC

• Tech Executive #1

• Hillary Clinton for America

What is clear (largely based upon Durham’s own filings) is he may have (operative phrase) unlawfully and unethically used a Grand Jury Subpoena. In which he obtained previously redacted communications which are largely shielded by “attorney client privilege” and/or “work product doctrine” privilege.

Again the April 20, 2022 expedited hearing —which strictly addressed the issue of privilege and Defendant Sussman made a series of incredibly serious allegations…. Again once the 3rd party privilege holders file their response (on Monday April 25, 2022) I’d expect the Court to issue an Order/Memorandum/Opinion on Sussman’s Motion to exclude certain evidence…

…Durham: “A Joint Venture Plainly Existed Here”

And if assuming argguendo that the conspiracy morphed into a “joint venture” then why wasn’t Sussman Indicted for that? Accordingly on April 23, 2022, in the afternoon hours, Special Counsel Durham finally filed a response (see ECF or see my Scribd account) —Also during the April 20th expedited hearing, the Court ordered the 3rd party interveners (as detailed above), to submit a response by April 25, 2022. Then the attorney client and/or work product doctrine issues will be fully briefed and I’d expect the Judge to issue a ruling, forthwith…but let’s take a hard look at Special Counsel Durham’s April 23. 2022 filing — I’d like to draw your attention to pages 1 and 2… here Durham proffers an ever evolving (conspiracy) theory…and opts to parse words and meetings completely out of context.

“…politically-laden and ethically-fraught nature of this project..” hello pot -meet kettle…

Some of you might actually wonder what a “conclusory statement” is. In non-legalese a “conclusory statement” (gasp clutching my invisible pearls there’s a typo -snort)

‘’’[E]xpressing a factual inference without stating the underlying facts on which the inference is based.” Black's Law Dictionary -it essentially means there’s no fact or evidence to support said claims… of which Durham has a long history of engaging in this kind of abhorrent and questionable prosecutorial and judicial behavior…

…Domain Name System (DNS) info is Public Info…

It’s not highly specialized meta-data —and it’s becoming obvious that Durham might not fully understand Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. (TCP/IP) —I mean I guess I could pull out my nerd card and ask more specific questions: like does IPv6 play well with GBP4 or MPLS? Or does MPLS I’m;act discard eligible data packets? And every and I mean every website contains DNS information…for example:

• ‘A’ records will point to a specific IP Address.

• CNAME records (Canonical Name records) points to a domain or in some cases a subdomain to another domain.

• Mail Exchange Records, factually show which email client you are using.

• Text (TXT )Records often deliver some security, user verification, and other data analysis information.

“…the goal of the joint venture could not have been more clear: it was to gather and disseminate derogatory non-public information regarding the internet activities of a political candidate and his associates. And that venture was far from collateral to the charged crime. Indeed, the above-described joint venture was the very project that led Tech Executive-1 to rely upon the defendant’s services; the very project that gave rise to the Russian Bank-1 allegations; the very project that prompted agents of the Clinton Campaign to meet with Tech Executive-1; and the very project that caused the defendant to meet with the FBI General Counsel and lie to him about the clients who were behind all of this work…”

Is a purported “joint venture” a prosecutable conspiracy? If so, then why wasn’t Sussman charged with “conspiracy”…

Speculation Alert: you are under zero obligation to agree with my assessments, in fact I encourage my readers to be skeptical. Notwithstanding if you recall in Defendant Sussman’s counter argument —he stated that Special Counsel Durham presumably abandoned at least two previous arguments —but when the “conspiracy” to defraud (which Sussman wasn’t charged with in his one count indictment) —Durham proffered a “new” theory -the “joint venture“ theory… additionally on pages 3 and 4 —in Durham’s April 23rd response, he is specifically citing communications (which I believe Sussman argued were “privilege”) yet inexplicably advances a new theory: “a joint venture”…and for the last forking time (sorry for yelling) DNS is not secret information… that’s basic and I mean milquetoast basic TCP/IP…

“…the goal of the joint venture could not have been more clear: it was to gather and disseminate derogatory non-public information regarding the internet activities of a political candidate and his associates. And that venture was far from collateral to the charged crime. Indeed, the above-described joint venture was the very project that led Tech Executive-1 to rely upon the defendant’s services; the very project that gave rise to the Russian Bank-1 allegations; the very project that prompted agents of the Clinton Campaign to meet with Tech Executive-1; and the very project that caused the defendant to meet with the FBI General Counsel and lie to him about the clients who were behind all of this work

Again I’ve made my position on Sussman and that’s unlikely to change, I want him to have a fair and impartial trial. I also expect that Special Counsel Durham to be held to the highest of high standards. Yet this case (and Deranged

…even if the Court were to find that no joint venture existed, all of the proffered communications are still admissible because, as set forth in the Government’s motions, they are not being offered to prove the truth of specific assertions… being offered to prove the existence of activities and relationships that led to, and culminated in, the defendant’s meeting with the FBI… the very existence of these written records – which laid bare the political nature of the exercise and the numerous doubts that the researchers had about the soundness of their conclusions – gave the defendant and his clients a compelling motive, separate and apart from the truth or falsity of the emails themselves, to conceal the identities of such clients and origins of the joint venture.

I’m sorry -what did you just file?

Here’s why you should scrutinize Durham’s April 23rd filing —Defendant Sussman’s criminal trial is currently scheduled to commence on May 16, 2022 —it is outrageous that this late stage (in pre-trial) Durham keeps moving the goal post. Remember in January 2022 Durham made a bonkers disclosure and subsequently FAILED to acknowledge that the DOJ-OIG had informed them they had Baker’s 2 cell phones): read more here

…the defendant’s contention that certain statements by Researcher-1 are inadmissible because they “frustrate, rather than advance the purported joint venture” is wrong. That Researcher-1 ultimately expressed doubts about the conclusions Tech Executive-1 was seeking to advance does not in any way suggest that Researcher-1 was not a member of the joint venture to begin with. To the contrary, numerous emails make plain that Researcher-1 joined and participated in the venture to mine and analyze internet data in support of the desired “inference” and “narrative.” …

So what happens next?

Without going into painful details (many of which would be reiterate of previously published articles) here are the following matters that the Court is likely to rule on:

• Sussman’s Motion to exclude certain evidence

• Sussman’s Motion to exclude certain (and last minute) witnesses

• 3rd party privilege holders

• Whether or not Durham abused the Grand Jury Subpoena powers

On Monday April 25, 2022 the privilege holders will file the court ordered response as it relates to attorney client and work product doctrine —privilege—the April 27th Oral Arguments hearing was vacated and it its place the April 20th expedited hearing occurred (and nope I’m not paying >$379 for an expedited hearing transcript but you can read Marcy’s twitter thread )… suffice to say if Durham’s April 23, 2022 filing is indicative of the April 20th hearing

And lastly your daily saltwater therapy — the Ocean in slow motion. Also ProTip: if a wave knocks you down, pop back up, especially if you’re recording —you might be pleasantly surprised by what you actually recorded.

file411_dc

A post shared by File411 (@file411_dc)

I know that there were a bunch of filings regarding Meadows, et al —I’m in the process of downloading (about 320+ Pages of various filings) and I’ll likely publish an article tomorrow (normally I take Sundays off) or first thing on Monday. Until then you can see the ECF or see my Scribd account for Durham’s most recent filing.

However should you be inclined you can pull down the April 22, 2022 MOTION for Summary (filed by Pelosi et al —the Defendants) via DDC-ECF

HSCJ6 already received: 2,319 text messages from Mr. Meadows’s private phone…nope you can not claw those back, ever…

I mean this is basic “legal stuff” —Meadows had voluntarily provided the Committee with over 2,300 text messages. Many of the topics Meadows not only publicly disclosed but that POS profited handsomely from his book…so yes spare me the feigned indignation —that kind of nonsense makes me want to throat punch those who are illiterate in the law (obviously present company excluded)

The Select Committee received certain documentation from Mr. Meadows, including 2,319 text messages from Mr. Meadows’s private phone as well as privilege logs claiming executive, attorney-client, and marital privilege for many documents and text messages that Mr. Meadows refused to produce.

Trump and Meadows were warned of Violence…

And yet these to seditious halfwits not only delayed sending the DC National Guard but stood by largely silent as Congress was attacked by countless MAGA-Trump domestic terrorist…

Whispers the “good stuff” like previously undisclosed text messages to/from Meadows starts around page 39 et seq… and when I say the “good stuff” —for example:

…Testimony regarding non-privileged documents (including text and email communications) Mr. Meadows has already provided to the Select Committee in response to his subpoena and related testimony about events Mr. Meadows has already publicly described in his book and elsewhere.

Certain of the text message exchanges Mr. Meadows produced in response to the Select Committee subpoena have already been made public

Oh you don’t want to spend $24.80 on the filing via the ECF? Cool that’s why I’ve already uploaded to full filing to my Scribd Account… or via my GoogleDrive —apparently Scribd is having a few issues uploading large documents.

Again I haven’t read all 248 pages of the Defendants April 22, 2022 Motion Summary Judgement but based on a cursory skim —it appears there’s a large tranche of previously undisclosed text messages to/from Meadows…