Sussman’s Response is exactly what many of us correctly predicted

Whispers do you think I should send EmptyWheel all the text messages E Garbage sent me about her…

Point of personal privilege: if you choose to believe a person who’s a known for their Coo Coo for Coco Puffs “conspiracy theories” it’s not another person’s job to convince you that you’re being mislead and feed a bunch of misinformation. The fact he used several Alt-Right “diagrams” (whispers pictures in general contain a bunch of meta data) and then spends hours drafting an incongruent & illogical thread. Here’s what I’m going to point out:

• You MORON DNS data is NOT the same as intercepting data communications (data packets have a header and footer) even my 8 year child knows that

• You saying “I’ll be your PACER Guide” perhaps you should tweet the actual documents.

• Feigning you know the Federal Criminal Rules of Procedure…you don’t and your thread is ground zero to support my assertion

• You do not know how to read legal documents, you big dolt I spent countless hours trying to teach you what’s important and what’s not. Clearly you didn’t pay attention —even after I spent hours teaching how to navigate the ECF ←your breathless “there are 10,000+K sealed indictments” was the pinnacle of your own self grandiosity of your own deep stupid.

• Just delete your account —the grown ups are talking and your misinformation and disinformation isn’t just sad, it’s predictably pedestrian and it makes getting actual facts cutting through your screaming goat --conspiracy laden bullshart is just exhausting.

• Every-time you “attempt” to convey you know what you’re talking about regarding Federal Criminal Cases, you sound like this👇🏻

Special Counsel Durham’s “stunt” as predicted backfired…

Before we dive into Defendant Sussman’s response, of which I specifically told my readers that it would be spectacular and trust me on this - you should reread this

Special Counsel Durham: your honor the firm & attorneys representing Sussman have countless conflicts. John, untimely much? Hey Kash I see you, again

…before we dive in because Sussman’s response is spectacular and I would encourage you to watch this Morning Joe segment —then go back and reread that atrocious thread. He missed so many facts that I almost feel sorry for him. Almost. No really @EmptyWheel did an excellent job explaining this case in the latter part of the segment. In short she and I are on the same page although at times it might look like we disagree, we don’t we just approach Court cases differently and I respect her analysis, a lot. Even the ones I don’t completely agree with but yesterday E Garbage’s minions relentlessly attacked her because she simply pointed out the voluminous errors in his thread

Morning Joe @Morning_Joe

NBC News Investigations Reporter @Tom_Winter discusses the key takeaways from the Durham court filing.

Let’s go ahead and dive head first into Sussman’s response now that you have a fuller view of the actual facts. I stated that Durham’s “conflict stunt” was bonkers and I repeatedly questioned why now? Why at this late stage in proceedings? Keep in mind that throughout the pretrial stage I’ve repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Special Counsel Durham’s investigation and subsequent three indictments (I purposefully have not opined about Kevin Clinesmith case because I didn’t have any criticism of Durham’s work in that case)

However I want you to read Sussman’s opening salvo —it’s there in black and white —the “there” being Sussman had repeatedly told Durham that there was no conflict and even if there was, Sussman would waive it. Do you remember the virtual Chinese wall analogy —where I explained how firms run a comprehensive conflicts check. Well DUH that’s because that’s what actually happens..

Now I’d like to draw your attention to paragraphs 2 and 3 -in non-legalese what Sussman is arguing (and likely establishing a pretext for a Motion to Dismiss his indictment) Special Counsel Durham has made numerous errors in both his investigations and subsequent court filings. This is your obligatory “my opinion disclaimer” for what I’m about to say next: Durham’s “has no current recollection” of any DOJ-OIG telephone call” was and is a significant issue and one could infer that Durham “accidentally mislead the Court” at the prejudice of Sussman…

In paragraph 3 Sussman is pointing to yet another recent filing by Durham, should you be inclined you can read more here “Durham has no current recollection at this time” that was me telling you that there’s a gigantic problem because as it turns out it is a gigantic problem. This is Sussman’s argument:

Approximately half of this Factual Background is —-provocatively—and misleadingly —describes for the first time Domain Name System (“DNS”) traffic potentially associated with former President Donald Trump, including data at the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”), that was allegedly presented to Agency-2 in February 2017…

…allegations were not included in the Indictment..

Weird it’s almost like a spicy PITA file pointed this out and made a prediction that Sussman will use that opening to kick the “Motion to Dismiss” door down, rightfully so -here read Sussman’s own words and tell me what I misunderstood (spoiler I didn’t the only one who misunderstood is the unemployed numbnuts who created that trash thread of deep stupid) My god why do people still hang on to every word he tweets? His tweets and research are absolute garbage. The fact he overlooked so many monumental errors by Durham isn’t lost on me.

These allegations were not included in the Indictment; these allegations post-date the single false statement that was charged in the Indictment; and these allegations were not necessary to identify any of the potential conflicts of interest with which the Motion is putatively concerned. Why then include them? The question answers itself.

Moving on to paragraph 4 - THERE. IT. IS. the argument I’ve been impatiently waiting for. Again let me explain the substance and subtext of Sussman’s argument in non-legalese; the “sensational Durham filing” immediately took off like a rocket to Disinformation land, where Fox News, OANN, NewMax etc immediately published stories predicated on Durham’s misleading filing. In simpler terms here’s an analogy that I think will help you fully understand what’s going on here: Durham shot first and then decided to investigate after he shot… that’s not a prosecutor in a position of strength —that’s a prosecutor who’s unbelievably biased (he got shitty info from Kash Patel ←take that to the Spicy bank) no seriously four days ago I walked you through all things Kash Patel and how this would create a fatal infirmary of Durham’s case against Sussman.

In paragraph 5 Sussman further elaborates on the aftermath of Durham’s provocative and misleading filing. Which includes Trump, his Twitter surrogates and several media outlets. The incorrect comparison to Watergate isn’t just laughable it is NOT grounded in the basic understanding of the law or the facts.

A DNS look up is not illegal.

A DNS lookup does not contain any material information like text of emails and/or text messages.

A DNS look up is NOT illegal (yes I know I repeated myself) but prepare yourselves because I’m going to yell:

O. M. F. G. stop with your Blue-QANON-sense your disinformation and misinformation is incredibly dangerous…

Do you understand that Sussman has and is continuing to receive death threats? That as a Defendant, Sussman has countless constitutional rights, not the least of which is a fair trail that’s not tainted by a tainted jury (in fact I believe I pointed this out in mid December) and what Durham’s latest stunt would absolutely prejudice Sussman thus chilling certain Constitutional Rights…

Now I’d like you draw your attention to paragraph 6 this is a textbook “establishing” Sussman’s likely selective prosecution argument. Odd how some of us said; hold on why is Durham bringing up the DNS, a cobbled conspiracy theory that loops the Obama Administration and Clinton” —look I’ve repeatedly stated that I’m not an attorney, I’m the one attorneys turn to to be devil’s advocate, tighten up legal arguments and typically provide an incomprehensible amount of research…but even I knew that Durham’s latest filing was atrocious and I predicted that Sussman would come out of the gate swinging for a grand slam…

Now if you read paragraph 5 thru 7 as a single unit I am telling you with (over a decade and half in the legal community) that Sussman’s arguments are establishing a pretext for him to file a Motion to Dismiss the one count indictment. For the record Sussman told one person the former FBI General Counsel and even then Durham had to revise his filings where he sure looks like he once again mislead the Court

Moving on to paragraph 8 - this is super important so please pay attention -between the various witnesses (re Tech Co # 1 official), the 2 Cell Phones, Sussman’s interview with the DOJ-OIG and likely withholding of exculpatory evidence —Durham’s case against Sussman was initially pretty weak but the latest developments show Durham’s political bias, incompetent investigation and proclivity to violate Sussman’s constitutional rights.

..it was not until November 2021—two months after Mr. Sussmann was indicted—that the Special Counsel bothered to interview any individual who worked full-time for that Campaign to determine if that allegation was true. It is not.

Side note what many of my readers do not know -when I’m editing an article I’m reading the filings as I’m writing about them. Meaning I don’t read the whole thing as I’m writing an article. This is a tactic my former legal mentor taught me and it’s become an invaluable lesson, for me. So when you read my articles understand I’m writing it in real time. For Example read paragraphs 8 & 9 -it’s right there in black and white, Sussman will be filing a Motion to Disniss his one count indictment…

Mr. Sussmann reserves all rights to submit appropriate motions and seek appropriate relief concerning this conduct should the Indictment not be dismissed and should the case proceed to trial, including by seeking extensive voir dire about potential jurors’ exposure to prejudicial media resulting from the Special Counsel’s irresponsible actions.

And lastly I uploaded a highlighted and annotated copy of Sussman’s response to my Scribd Account and your obligatory daily dose of saltwater (immersion) therapy. But I had a few minutes in between meetings and thought my readers would benefit from a factual article versus an insane and incongruent thread of Blue-QANON-SENSE. I’m serious you should stop polluting your brain with his rancid hogwash, it only makes your more stupid by believing anything he tweets. And friends do not let friends be exposed to obvious misinformation or disinformation… have a great day but I have to get back to my J-O-B and tweeting or Substack isn’t my actual job.

-Mic Drop and skips away laughing at his mendacity and deep stupid. Garbage once again doesn’t understand Court filings. I mean do you want me to show you the hours I spent on the phone trying to teach him? Nah why engage in spoliation of my pristine evidence. -snort-

file411_dc

A post shared by File411 (@file411_dc)