• OT: John Durham loves Hillary long time!

    From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 6 02:31:47 2022
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake collusion interference against a duly elected president.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 5 20:35:16 2022
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake collusion interference against a duly elected president.

    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he hadn't been
    working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton campaign team
    discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Tue Apr 5 20:54:24 2022
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he hadn't been
    working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton campaign team
    discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, submit a complaint against John Durham, you PROFOUND IDIOT! But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 5 21:04:11 2022
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:40:27 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    The Australian clown is at it again.

    As usual, John Doe poaches my line. John Doe is an American clown with any number of silly ideas, and he resents it when it is pointed out how silly they are.

    He's too dim to spell out his objections in any detail, or even come up with more than a mirror image reaction.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Tue Apr 5 21:11:06 2022
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he hadn't
    been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton campaign
    team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can't be high.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 6 03:40:20 2022
    The Australian clown is at it again.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Tue Apr 5 22:04:17 2022
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he hadn't
    been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton campaign
    team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.
    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!
    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can't be high.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, ANYONE can submit a complaint, FOOL, but you KNOW that already! You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION! I know your types - WELL!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed Apr 6 01:14:53 2022
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he hadn'
    t been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton
    campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can't be
    high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise quite how
    idiotic you are.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 6 22:20:52 2022
    First edit of the LONG court filing, to make it easy to read via text to speech. The formatting is inconsistent, but doesn't matter for TTS.





    THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE.

    The United States of America, by and through its attorney, Special Counsel John H.
    Durham, respectfully moves in limine for the admission and exclusion of certain evidence at trial.
    Specifically, the Government moves to (i) admit witnesses’ contemporaneous notes of
    conversations with the FBI General Counsel, (ii) admit emails referenced in the Indictment and
    other, similar emails, (iii) admit certain acts and statements (including the defendant’s February
    2017 meeting with a government agency, his December 2017 Congressional testimony, and his
    former employer’s October 2018 statements to the media) as direct evidence or, alternatively,
    pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), (iv) exclude evidence and preclude argument
    concerning allegations of political bias on the part of the Special Counsel, and (v) admit an October
    31, 2016 tweet by the Clinton Campaign. 1 For reasons stated below, the Government submits
    that the motions should be granted.


    Note 1. Currently, the Government does not know what particular defenses counsel plans to
    mount at trial. While it is plain from the defendant’s motion to dismiss that he plans to make a
    materiality defense, the defendant may choose to raise other theories of defense as well.
    Accordingly, the Government’s motions in limine here are intended to address evidentiary issues
    that might arise as part of various possible defense theories.



    FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
    The defendant is charged in a one-count indictment with making a materially false
    statement to an FBI official, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. As set
    forth in the Indictment, on September 19, 2016 – less than two months before the 2016 U.S.
    Presidential election – the defendant, a lawyer at a large international law firm (“Law Firm-1”)
    that was then serving as counsel to the Clinton Campaign, met with the FBI General Counsel at
    FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. The defendant provided the FBI General Counsel with
    purported data and “white papers” that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel
    between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank (“Russian Bank-1”). The Indictment
    alleges that the defendant lied in that meeting, falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was
    not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client. In fact, the defendant had
    assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients,
    including (i) a technology executive (“Tech Executive-1”) at a U.S.-based Internet company
    (“Internet Company-1”), and (ii) the Clinton Campaign.
    Indeed, on September 18, 2016 at 7:24 p.m., i.e., the night before the defendant met with
    the General Counsel, the defendant conveyed the same lie in writing and sent the following text
    message to the General Counsel’s personal cellphone:
    Jim – it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availibilty for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own – not on behalf of a client or company – want to help the Bureau. Thanks.

    The FBI General Counsel responded: “Ok. I will find a time. What might work for you?” To
    which the defendant replied: “Any time but lunchtime – you name it.”
    The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton
    Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these
    allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law
    partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign
    (“Campaign Lawyer-1”).
    The Indictment also alleges that, beginning in approximately July 2016, Tech Executive-1
    had worked with the defendant, a U.S. investigative firm retained by Law Firm-1 on behalf of the
    Clinton Campaign (the “U.S. Investigative Firm”), numerous cyber researchers, and employees at
    multiple Internet companies to assemble the purported data and white papers. In connection with
    these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data.
    Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university
    (“University-1”) who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection
    with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract. Tech Executive-1 tasked these
    researchers to mine Internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying then-candidate
    Trump to Russia. In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain
    “VIPs,” referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign.
    The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech
    Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic
    pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider (“Healthcare Company-1”), (ii) Trump Tower,
    (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the
    President of the United States (“EOP”).
    The Indictment further details that on February 9, 2017, the defendant provided an updated
    set of allegations – including the Russian Bank-1 data and additional allegations relating to Trump
    – to a second agency of the U.S. government (“Agency-2”). The Government’s evidence at trial
    will establish that these additional allegations relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic that
    Tech Executive-1 and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New
    York City apartment building, the EOP, and Healthcare Company-1. In his meeting with Agency-
    2, the defendant provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by
    these entities of internet protocol (“IP”) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider
    (“Russian Phone Provider-1”). The defendant further claimed that these lookups demonstrated
    that Trump and/or his associates were using a type of Russian-made wireless phone in the vicinity
    of the White House and other locations.
    In his meeting with Agency-2 employees, the defendant also made a substantially similar
    false statement as he had made to the FBI General Counsel. In particular, the defendant asserted
    that he was not representing a particular client in conveying the above allegations. In truth and in
    fact, the defendant was continuing to represent at least Tech Executive-1– a fact the defendant
    subsequently acknowledged under oath in December 2017 testimony before Congress (without
    identifying the client by name).

    ARGUMENT.

    I. Witnesses’ Notes of Conversations with the FBI General Counsel are Admissible
    as Prior Consistent Statements and Past Recollections Recorded.

    A. Factual Background.

    On September 19, 2016, soon after he met with the defendant, the FBI General Counsel
    spoke with the then-FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence (the “Assistant Director”) and
    with one of his Deputy General Counsels (the “Deputy General Counsel”). 3 In communicating
    with these officials, the General Counsel relayed the details of his meeting with the defendant,
    including defendant’s specific representation that he was not there on behalf of any client. Both
    the Assistant Director and the Deputy General Counsel took contemporaneous notes. The
    Assistant Director wrote the following in his FBI notebook, which stated, among other things,
    “said not doing this for any client”:

    Similarly, the Deputy General Counsel took the following notes, which stated, in part, “No specific
    client but group of cyber academics talked w/ him about research”:


    Note 2. By February 9, 2017, the Clinton Campaign for all intents and purposes no longer existed.

    Note 3. Given the passage of time and lack of recollection by these witnesses, it is unclear whether
    the General Counsel spoke with these witnesses separately or at the same time.



    B. Applicable Law.

    Prior Consistent Statements.

    Hearsay—a statement made other than at a hearing or trial in which the declarant is
    testifying and which a party offers for the truth of the matter asserted—is generally
    inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). However, a prior statement is “not hearsay” if the declarant
    testifies, is subject to cross-examination about the statement, and the statement “is consistent with
    the declarant’s testimony and is offered. . . to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant
    recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying,” or to
    “rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground.” Fed. R
    Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i)-(ii). To be admitted, a prior consistent statement offered under sub-provision
    (d)(1)(B)(ii) of this Rule must have been made “before the charged recent fabrication or improper
    influence or motive.” Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 167 (1995) (interpreting prior version
    of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)).

    Admissibility of a prior consistent statement is typically triggered by impeachment during
    cross-examination of the declarant-witness, thus enabling the sponsoring party to present evidence
    of the prior consistent statement on re-direct. But the necessary impeachment can also occur
    earlier in the trial, even as early as during the opposing party’s opening statement, which then
    permits the sponsoring party to elicit evidence of a prior consistent statement during direct
    examination. United States v. Foster, 652 F.3d 776, 787 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding trial judge
    properly admitted evidence of declarant-witness’s prior consistent statement during direct
    examination by prosecution when the defense “clearly implied in [its] opening statement that [the
    witness] would lie about [the defendant’s] involvement in the robbery in order to curry favor with
    the government”), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 1029 (2012); see also United States v. O’Connor, 650 F.
    3d 839, 862-63 (2d Cir. 2011) (noting defendant-appellants’ attacks on victim’s credibility “had
    begun. . . in their opening statements”), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1148 (2012); United States v.
    Belfast, 611 F. 3d 783, 817 (11th Cir. 2010) (same), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1236 (2011). All that
    is required for impeachment to trigger the admissibility of a prior consistent statement is “a
    suggestion that the [declarant-]witness consciously altered his testimony.” United States v.
    Casoni, 950 F. 2d 893, 903-04 (3d Cir. 1991).
    As noted above, under sub-provision (d)(1)(B)(ii) of Rule 801, a prior consistent
    statement of a declarant-witness is also “not hearsay” when “offered to rehabilitate the declarant’s
    credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground,” i.e., on a ground other than that the
    witness recently fabricated his testimony or that the witness acted from a recent improper influence
    or motive. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(B)(ii). According to the Advisory Committee Notes, this
    provision, added in 2014, “extend[s] substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other
    attacks on a witness—such as the charges of inconsistency or faulty memory.” Courts appear to
    have uniformly held, as the Advisory Committee Note suggests, that the new provision allows for
    the admission of a declarant witness’s prior consistent statement when the testimony is challenged
    on the ground of faulty memory, without regard to when the prior consistent statement was
    made. United States v. Flores, 945 F. 3d 687, 704-06 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 375
    (2020); United States v. Cox, 871 F. 3d 479, 487 (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 754
    (2018).
    Past Recollection Recorded.
    Certain notes, summaries, memoranda, or other records written by a person to document
    their observations or impressions may be admitted as past recollection recorded under Federal Rule
    of Evidence 803(5). See, e.g., U.S. v. Orm Hieng, 679 F. 3d 1131, 1143 (9th Cir. 2012); U.S. v.
    Green, 258 F. 3d 683, 689 (7th Cir. 2001). To satisfy this hearsay exception, the proponent must
    establish that (1) the record is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well
    enough to testify fully and accurately; (2) the record was made or adopted by the witness when the
    matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and (3) the record accurately reflects the witness’s
    knowledge. Fed. R. Evid. 803(5). For a statement to fall within this exception, the proponent must
    demonstrate that the witness-declarant’s memory has faded so that he is no longer able “to testify
    fully and accurately.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(5); U.S. v. Jones, 601 F. 3d 1247, 1262 (11th Cir. 2010)
    (finding that the government sufficiently demonstrated, based on the witness’s answers, that the
    witness lacked “clear and distinct recollection” regarding her interview with law enforcement
    agent). If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an
    exhibit unless offered by opposing counsel. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(5).

    C. Discussion.

    The Government moves to admit the Assistant Director’s and Deputy General Counsel’s
    contemporaneous handwritten notes on two grounds: as prior consistent statements by the General
    Counsel and as past recorded recollection as to these witnesses. As discussed below, the
    Government anticipates that one of the principal defense strategies at trial will be to attack the
    General Counsel’s credibility and attempt to impeach him on cross-examination with prior
    testimony. For example, the defendant will likely try to impeach the General Counsel on cross
    examination by suggesting that he knew that the defendant represented political clients and was
    either mistaken in his recollection of what the defendant said in the meeting or is somehow biased
    or fabricating. Accordingly, if the defense raises such impeachment arguments in their opening
    statements or on cross-examination of the General Counsel, both witnesses’ notes would be
    admissible as prior consistent statements made to these witnesses by the former General Counsel.
    More specifically, and as can be seen from the records themselves, both sets of notes are squarely
    consistent with what the Government expects the General Counsel will testify at trial—namely,
    that the defendant affirmatively told him that he was not bringing the information to the FBI on
    behalf of any client. 4 The notes also contain additional statements that will be consistent with the
    General Counsel’s testimony at trial, such as the defendant’s representation that he had been
    “approached” by cyber experts, and that the data involved a “secret” connection between a Trump
    company server and Russian Bank-1. The notes will therefore be admissible to rebut any
    impeachment or argument about fabrication, mis-recollection, or misunderstanding about whether
    the defendant was there on behalf of any client. 5
    In addition, the Government expects that both of the note-takers’ testimony at trial will
    establish a sound basis for the admission of the notes as “past recollection recorded.” First, both
    sets of notes memorialize details from the General Counsel’s account of that meeting on the very
    same day it took place. In fact, the Government expects the General Counsel will testify that he
    believes he spoke to these witnesses soon after the meeting took place, when the details were fresh
    in his mind. The Government’s evidence will further establish that both witnesses took these notes
    contemporaneously with the General Counsel’s reporting of the meeting to them. Finally, the
    notes would be admissible as past recollections recorded of both witnesses because neither witness
    currently recalls these matters “well enough to testify fully and accurately.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(5).
    However, both witnesses will testify that their notes accurately reflect what the General Counsel
    told them at that time. Accordingly, these notes meet the Rule’s requirement that the relevant
    records must be made while the information is fresh in a witness’s mind and accurately reflect
    their knowledge at the time. Accordingly, the notes should be admitted under Federal Rule of
    Evidence 803(5).

    Note 4. In addition, this statement would also be admissible to show the General Counsel’s “state
    of mind,” as his repeating the defendant’s claim he was not there for a client was of sufficient
    importance to the General Counsel that he relayed it to these other FBI officials. Fed R. Evid.
    803(3).

    Note 5. The Assistant Director’s notes further reflect that the General Counsel understood from
    the defendant that the information the defendant was providing to the FBI—that a “secret” Trump
    server was communicating with Russian Bank-1—would be the subject of an upcoming news
    article that Friday (and another article in several weeks). This portion of the notes is also not
    hearsay because it is admissible to explain the General Counsel’s and the FBI’s course of conduct
    in contacting the relevant news organization to request they delay publication of the story.



    II. The Court Should Admit the Emails Cited in the Indictment and Other, Similar
    Emails.
    The Government next moves to admit at trial the emails cited in the Indictment and other
    similar communications (i) between Tech Executive-1 and various researchers and Internet
    company employees, and (ii) between and among the U.S. Investigative Firm (which, as noted
    above, Law Firm-1 hired in 2016 on behalf of the Clinton Campaign) and various third parties,
    including the media.
    As set forth below, these communications are highly probative because they refute the
    defendant’s alleged statement to the FBI that he did not provide the Russian Bank-1 allegations to
    the FBI “on behalf of any client.” In particular, these communications establish that the
    defendant’s clients – Tech Executive-1, the Clinton Campaign, and their agents – communicated
    and coordinated with each other and with third parties regarding the very same allegations that the
    defendant provided to the FBI, thus evidencing their attorney-client relationships surrounding the
    Russian Bank-1 allegations. Such evidence is probative and central to the Government’s case
    since the majority of communications between the defendant and his clients have been redacted or
    withheld due to asserted attorney-client privilege. Fed. R. Evid. 401. In addition, the
    aforementioned communications demonstrate the materiality of the defendant’s lie insofar as they
    reveal the political origins and purposes for this work. And those political origins are especially
    probative here because they provided a motive for the defendant to conceal his clients’
    involvement in these matters. Id.
    In addition to their probity, these non-privileged communications are also admissible
    and/or not hearsay because (i) the Government does not intend to offer the vast majority of the
    statements reflected in these communications for their truth, see Fed R. Evid. 802(c)(2), and (ii)
    regardless of whether they are being offered for the truth, the relevant communications are
    nevertheless admissible as co-conspirator statements made in furtherance of a joint venture. See
    Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).


    A. Applicable Law.

    Again, hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the
    trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
    Statements are not hearsay if they are not “offered . . . to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
    Ali v. D.C. Gov’t, 810 F. Supp. 2d 78, 83 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing MCCORMICK ON EVID. § 249
    (6th ed. 2009) (“If [a] statement is not an assertion or is not offered to prove the facts asserted, it
    is not hearsay.”)). For example, statements are non-hearsay if they shed light on an individual’s
    “intent, motive, or state of mind, help to explain his future conduct, [or] serve to refute any
    possibility of mistake or misunderstanding.” United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 45–46
    (D.D.C. 2006) (emails received by defendant were “admissible because they might help to explain
    [defendant’s] motive and intent at the time he undertook certain actions”). In addition,
    “directives,” taskings, commands, or other “verbal acts” are generally not hearsay because they do
    not constitute assertions. Mitchell v. DCX, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 33, 42 (D.D.C. 2003); see also
    Michigan First Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc., 641 F. 3d 240, 251 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding
    that a “command” was not hearsay because it was “a verbal act without truth value”); United States
    v. Rodriguez–Lopez, 565 F. 3d 312, 314–15 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that “commands” are not
    hearsay because they are not “assertive speech”).
    Rule 801(d)(ii)(C) authorizes the admission of an out-of-court statement against a
    particular party when the statement “was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a
    statement on the subject.” In addition, Rule 801(d)(2)(E) authorizes the admission of an out-of-
    court statement “by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the
    conspiracy.” Where a defendant objects to such an admission, however, the district court must
    find by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant and
    declarant were members of that conspiracy. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76
    (1987). A court can preliminarily admit hearsay statements of co-conspirators, subject to
    connection through proof of conspiracy. See United States v. Jackson, 627 F. 2d 1198, 1218 (D.C.
    Cir. 1980) (approving procedure). To admit a statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the court must
    find (i) that there was a conspiracy; (ii) that its members included the declarant and the party
    against whom the statement is offered; and (iii) that the statement was made during the course of
    and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Bourjaily 483 U.S. at 175.
    Importantly, although Rule 801(d)(2)(E) refers to “conspiracy” and “co-conspirators,” the
    D.C. Circuit has expressly held that “the doctrine is not limited to unlawful combinations.” United
    States v. Weisz, 718 F. 2d 413, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “Rather, the rule, based on concepts of agency
    and partnership law and applicable in both civil and criminal trials, ‘embodies the long-standing
    doctrine that when two or more individuals are acting in concert toward a common goal, the out-
    of-court statements of one are . . . admissible against the others, if made in furtherance of the
    common goal.’” United States v. Gewin, 471 F. 3d 197, 201–02 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Weisz,
    718 F. 2d at 433)). In quoting and citing the 1974 Senate Advisory Committee note to Rule
    801(d)(2)(E), the D.C. Circuit has also explained that “[Rule 801(d)(2)(E)] was meant to carry
    forward the universally accepted doctrine that a joint venturer is considered as a coconspirator for
    the purpose of this [R]ule even though no conspiracy has been charged.” Weisz, 718 F. 2d at 433
    (citations and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 562 (1988)
    (invoking Advisory Committee note in interpreting Federal Rules of Evidence). At least six other Circuits have similarly held that the objective of a joint venture for these
    purposes need not be criminal. United States v. Russo, 302 F. 3d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he
    objective of the joint venture that justifies deeming the speaker as the agent of the defendant need
    not be criminal at all”); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Brathwaite, 782 F. 2d 399, 403 (3d
    Cir. 1986) (same); United States v. Nelson, 732 F.3d 504, 516 (5th Cir. 2013) (same); United States
    v. Kelley, 864 F.2d 569, 573 (7th Cir.) (same); United States v. Coe, 718 F.2d 830, 835 (7th Cir.
    1984) (same); United States v. Layton, 855 F.2d 1388, 1400 (9th Cir. 1988) (same), cert. denied,
    489 U.S. 1046 (1989), overruled on other grounds by Guam v. Ignacio, 10 F.3d 608 (9th Cir.
    1993); United States v. Saimiento-Rozo, 676 F.2d 146, 149-50 (5th Cir. 1982) (same). That is
    because “[c]onspiracy as an evidentiary rule differs from conspiracy as a crime. The crime of
    conspiracy comprehends much more than just a joint venture or concerted action, whereas the
    evidentiary rule of conspiracy is founded on concepts of agency law.” Coe, 718 F. 2d at 835.

    B. Discussion.

    Relevant communications between and among Tech Executive-1, various researchers and
    internet company employees, and certain members of the U.S. Investigative Firm – examples of
    which are described in further detail below – are all admissible because they are not being offered
    for their truth and/or reflect statements made in furtherance of a joint venture between and among
    the defendant, Tech Executive-1, and representatives or agents of the Clinton Campaign.



    Joint Venture Involving the Defendant, Tech Executive-1, and the Clinton Campaign.

    As an initial matter, the Government expects that the evidence at trial will show that
    beginning in late July/early August 2016, the defendant, Tech Executive-1, and agents of the
    Clinton Campaign were “acting in concert toward a common goal,” Gewin, 471 F. 3d at 201–02,
    namely, the goal of assembling and disseminating the Russian Bank-1 allegations and other
    derogatory information about Trump and his associates to the media and the U.S. government.
    In particular, the evidence will show that in late July and early August, Tech Executive-1
    commenced a project in coordination with the defendant and Law Firm-1 to support an “inference”
    and “narrative” tying Trump to Russia. For example, calendar entries will show that on August
    12, August 17, and August 19, 2016, Tech Executive-1 had meetings and/or conference calls with
    the defendant and the Clinton Campaign’s General Counsel (i.e., Campaign Lawyer-1). 6 During
    or around that same time period, Tech Executive-1 began tasking his own employees and
    associates to mine and assemble internet data that would support an “inference” or “narrative”
    tying Trump to Russia. Tech Executive-1 expressly stated in emails that a purpose of this effort
    was to please these “VIPs,” apparently referring to the defendant, Campaign Lawyer-1, and the
    Clinton Campaign.
    Expected witness testimony, documents already in the public record, and other evidence to
    be offered at trial establish that these efforts amounted to a joint venture:
    • For example, the Government expects that testimony at trial will establish that in
    approximately early-to-mid-August 2016, Tech Executive-1 called the CEO of a company in
    which he maintained an ownership interest (referred to in the Indictment as “Internet Company-
    2”) and instructed the CEO to search data maintained by his company and another, affiliated
    company (referred to as “Internet Company-3”) for information concerning the online activities of
    Trump and his associates. 7 Tech Executive-1 stated to the CEO that he was working with a person
    at a firm in Washington, D.C. with close ties to Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic
    Party. Tech Executive-1 also emailed to the CEO a document containing the physical addresses,
    email addresses, IP addresses and other personal information for various Trump associates,
    including some of these associates’ spouses and family members (the “Trump Associates List”).

    Note 6. The Government anticipates that, if called as a witness, Campaign Lawyer-1 would testify
    that he does not recall how many calls/meetings took place with the defendant and Tech Executive-
    1 or the specifics of those calls/meetings. Campaign Lawyer-1 believes, however, that he likely
    discussed the Russian Bank-1 allegations on one or more of these calls.

    • The Government expects that testimony at trial will reveal that the aforementioned
    CEO was highly uncomfortable with this task. The CEO and others complied with the instructions,
    however, because Tech Executive-1 was a powerful figure at these companies. The companies
    thereafter embarked on a data analysis/opposition research project concerning Trump and his
    associates, which they codenamed “Crimson Rhino.”
    • The evidence will show that during or around the same time period, Tech Executive-1 similarly tasked the person referred to in the Indictment as “Originator-1” and other
    researchers with opposition research regarding Trump. Reflecting a common plan to commission
    such research, Tech Executive-1 emailed to these researchers the same Trump Associates List that
    he had provided to the aforementioned CEO.
    • Testimony at trial will establish that among the individuals whom Tech Executive-
    1 and Originator-1 enlisted in this project were researchers at University-1 who were assigned to
    a then-pending federal cybersecurity contract with a U.S. government agency (“Agency-1”). At
    the time, Tech Executive-1 was negotiating an agreement between his then-employer (“Internet
    Company-1”) and University-1 to sell large amounts of internet data to the university for use under
    the Agency-1 contract. The intended purpose of this agreement and University-1’s sensitive work
    with Agency-1 was to gather and analyze internet metadata in order to detect malicious
    cyberattacks. As set forth in the Indictment, however, Tech Executive-1 and Originator-1 worked
    with two of these University-1 researchers (“Researcher-1” and “Researcher-2”) to mine internet
    data for the purpose of assisting the aforementioned opposition research.

    Note 7. Internet Company-3, among other things, places or gains access to sensors on the
    Internet’s infrastructure that allow it to collect large quantities of Internet domain name system
    (“DNS”) traffic from around the globe, which it then sells.

    • As part of these efforts, the defendant and Law Firm-1 began facilitating collaboration and sharing of information between and among Tech Executive-1, the U.S.
    Investigative Firm, and the Clinton Campaign. For example, email records reflect that in August
    2016, the defendant began exchanging emails with personnel from the U.S. Investigative Firm and
    Campaign Lawyer-1 containing the subject line, “connecting you all by email.” (The contents of
    these emails have been redacted and withheld pursuant to asserted attorney-client privilege.)
    • Later that month, Tech Executive-1 also began communicating with personnel from
    the U.S. Investigative Firm. (The U.S. Investigative Firm has similarly withheld the contents of
    such communications as subject to attorney-client privilege.)
    • Email records to be offered at trial and described in further detail below reflect that
    in the ensuing months, employees of the U.S. Investigative Firm communicated with reporters
    regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations and urged them to publish articles regarding the Russian
    Bank-1 allegations.
    • Publicly-available evidence also reflects that the defendant took further steps to
    integrate the Russian Bank-1-related allegations into the Clinton Campaign’s opposition research
    efforts. For example, in the summer of 2016, the defendant met in Law Firm-1’s offices with the
    author of a now well-known dossier regarding Trump (referred to in the Indictment as “U.K.
    Person-1”) and personnel from the U.S. Investigative Firm. U.K. Person-1 had at the time been
    retained by the U.S. Investigative Firm to conduct opposition research for the Clinton Campaign.
    Although the defendant testified before Congress that the purpose of the meeting was to “vet” U.K.
    Person-1 for the Clinton Campaign given the defendant’s knowledge of national security matters,
    U.K. Person-1 has testified under oath in the United Kingdom that, during the meeting, the
    defendant told him at the meeting about the Russian Bank-1 allegations. U.K. Person-1 further
    testified that after the meeting, personnel from the U.S. Investigative Firm tasked U.K. Person-1
    to research and produce intelligence reports about Russian Bank-1, which he did.
    • According to U.S. government records and public information, U.K. Person-1 also

    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 8 19:00:19 2022
    Damn!

    It's like Durham is indicting Sussmann AND the swampy DC judge too!

    During recent Supreme Court oral argument, sounded like one counsel
    slapped Neil Gorsuch for his utterly corrupt decision (Bostock v Clayton County).

    Similarly... John Durham appears to be saying "I don't care if the judge doesn't like my speech, I'm putting my cards on the table."

    It's brash, but sounds like a way to avoid being suicided.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Fri Apr 8 20:43:08 2022
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 5:00:29 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Damn!

    It's like Durham is indicting Sussmann AND the swampy DC judge too!

    During recent Supreme Court oral argument, sounded like one counsel
    slapped Neil Gorsuch for his utterly corrupt decision (Bostock v Clayton County).

    Similarly... John Durham appears to be saying "I don't care if the judge doesn't like my speech, I'm putting my cards on the table."

    It's brash, but sounds like a way to avoid being suicided.

    It sounds more like suicide to me. I'd read that as John Durham recognising that his case wasn't worth pursuing and inviting the judge to throw it out. It sounds as if it always was the FBI throwing a sop to Trump, and they don't have to bother anymore
    now that he's out of power.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Fri Apr 8 21:18:59 2022
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he
    hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton
    campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can't be
    high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!

    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!
    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!

    I know your types - WELL!!
    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise quite how
    idiotic you are.

    SNIPPERMAN, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.


    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri Apr 8 21:50:01 2022
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he
    hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton
    campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can't be
    high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!

    Flyguy has this self-serving delusion that his contentless assertions represent educational knowledge. They do educate us about Flyguy's terminal stupidity, but we already knew more than we wanted to know about that.

    If he wanted to look as if he knew what he was talking about he'd at least provide a URL where I could submit a complaint, or a least get intelligible instructions on where to submit such a
    complaint, but he isn't up to managing that kind of practical detail. Probably because I can't, but he doesn't worry about that kind of real-world detail.

    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!

    How? I'm not an American (or an idiot). Flyguy is both so he could improve American society by completely removing himself from it - as opposed to be being locked up in an asylum for the terminally deranged which seems likely to be his current condition.

    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise quite how
    idiotic you are.

    Sloman, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.

    But you are totally incapable of posting a single item of information to support that claim. I'm a real person and there is a lot of web accessible information about me - including a photo.

    I doubt if you will be able to find even that.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Fri Apr 8 21:52:42 2022
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:22:52 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Here, Bill pretends he read the filing.

    <snip>

    I didn't. I marked it as spam. A link to the filing wouldn't have been.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 9 04:22:45 2022
    Here, Bozo pretends he read the filing.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Apr 9 23:27:43 2022
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he
    hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton
    campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can't
    be high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!
    Flyguy has this self-serving delusion that his contentless assertions represent educational knowledge. They do educate us about Flyguy's terminal stupidity, but we already knew more than we wanted to know about that.

    If he wanted to look as if he knew what he was talking about he'd at least provide a URL where I could submit a complaint, or a least get intelligible instructions on where to submit such a
    complaint, but he isn't up to managing that kind of practical detail. Probably because I can't, but he doesn't worry about that kind of real-world detail.
    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!
    How? I'm not an American (or an idiot). Flyguy is both so he could improve American society by completely removing himself from it - as opposed to be being locked up in an asylum for the terminally deranged which seems likely to be his current
    condition.
    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise quite
    how idiotic you are.
    Sloman, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.

    But you are totally incapable of posting a single item of information to support that claim. I'm a real person and there is a lot of web accessible information about me - including a photo.

    I doubt if you will be able to find even that.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, you CLAIM to be a "real person." Who the fuck knows who you REALLY ARE??? What we DO know is that you are an IDIOT!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Apr 10 01:24:34 2022
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if
    he hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton
    campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can'
    t be high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!
    Flyguy has this self-serving delusion that his contentless assertions represent educational knowledge. They do educate us about Flyguy's terminal stupidity, but we already knew more than we wanted to know about that.

    If he wanted to look as if he knew what he was talking about he'd at least provide a URL where I could submit a complaint, or a least get intelligible instructions on where to submit such a
    complaint, but he isn't up to managing that kind of practical detail. Probably because I can't, but he doesn't worry about that kind of real-world detail.
    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!
    How? I'm not an American (or an idiot). Flyguy is both so he could improve American society by completely removing himself from it - as opposed to be being locked up in an asylum for the terminally deranged which seems likely to be his current
    condition.
    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise quite
    how idiotic you are.

    Sloman, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.

    But you are totally incapable of posting a single item of information to support that claim. I'm a real person and there is a lot of web accessible information about me - including a photo.

    I doubt if you will be able to find even that.

    And he couldn't.

    Hey Sloman, you CLAIM to be a "real person." Who the fuck knows who you REALLY ARE???

    Nobody as stupid as Flyguy, obviously. Brighter people could use google to find out a bit.

    <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&btnG=>

    What we DO know is that you are an IDIOT!

    You do seem to have persuaded yourself that this fatuous assertion is worth making. As the link above should make clear - probably only to people a bit brighter than you are - is that I am clever enough to have published papers in the peer-reviewed
    scientific literature. This won't mean anything to you, but it is the kind of evidence of a certain minimal intellectual competence that is hard to fake.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun Apr 10 20:58:37 2022
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if he
    hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton
    campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can't
    be high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!
    Flyguy has this self-serving delusion that his contentless assertions represent educational knowledge. They do educate us about Flyguy's terminal stupidity, but we already knew more than we wanted to know about that.

    If he wanted to look as if he knew what he was talking about he'd at least provide a URL where I could submit a complaint, or a least get intelligible instructions on where to submit such a
    complaint, but he isn't up to managing that kind of practical detail. Probably because I can't, but he doesn't worry about that kind of real-world detail.
    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!
    How? I'm not an American (or an idiot). Flyguy is both so he could improve American society by completely removing himself from it - as opposed to be being locked up in an asylum for the terminally deranged which seems likely to be his current
    condition.
    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise quite
    how idiotic you are.
    SNIPPERMAN, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.

    But you are totally incapable of posting a single item of information to support that claim. I'm a real person and there is a lot of web accessible information about me - including a photo.

    I doubt if you will be able to find even that.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, "terminal stupidity" is advocating NUKING YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY!!! Whenever I post things that support my claim you say "it's not worth my time to look at it."

    Why don't you stop IMPERSONATING Bill Sloman?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun Apr 10 20:53:57 2022
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him
    if he hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the
    Clinton campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result
    can't be high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!
    Flyguy has this self-serving delusion that his contentless assertions represent educational knowledge. They do educate us about Flyguy's terminal stupidity, but we already knew more than we wanted to know about that.

    If he wanted to look as if he knew what he was talking about he'd at least provide a URL where I could submit a complaint, or a least get intelligible instructions on where to submit such a
    complaint, but he isn't up to managing that kind of practical detail. Probably because I can't, but he doesn't worry about that kind of real-world detail.
    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!
    How? I'm not an American (or an idiot). Flyguy is both so he could improve American society by completely removing himself from it - as opposed to be being locked up in an asylum for the terminally deranged which seems likely to be his current
    condition.
    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise
    quite how idiotic you are.

    Sloman, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.

    But you are totally incapable of posting a single item of information to support that claim. I'm a real person and there is a lot of web accessible information about me - including a photo.

    I doubt if you will be able to find even that.
    And he couldn't.

    Hey Sloman, you CLAIM to be a "real person." Who the fuck knows who you REALLY ARE???

    Nobody as stupid as Flyguy, obviously. Brighter people could use google to find out a bit.

    <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&btnG=>
    What we DO know is that you are an IDIOT!
    You do seem to have persuaded yourself that this fatuous assertion is worth making. As the link above should make clear - probably only to people a bit brighter than you are - is that I am clever enough to have published papers in the peer-reviewed
    scientific literature. This won't mean anything to you, but it is the kind of evidence of a certain minimal intellectual competence that is hard to fake.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, ANYBODY could post that bullshit, you dolt. Even I could! You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Apr 10 22:37:46 2022
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:58:40 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him if
    he hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the Clinton
    campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result can'
    t be high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!
    Flyguy has this self-serving delusion that his contentless assertions represent educational knowledge. They do educate us about Flyguy's terminal stupidity, but we already knew more than we wanted to know about that.

    If he wanted to look as if he knew what he was talking about he'd at least provide a URL where I could submit a complaint, or a least get intelligible instructions on where to submit such a complaint, but he isn't up to managing that kind of
    practical detail. Probably because I can't, but he doesn't worry about that kind of real-world detail.

    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!

    How? I'm not an American (or an idiot). Flyguy is both so he could improve American society by completely removing himself from it - as opposed to be being locked up in an asylum for the terminally deranged which seems likely to be his current
    condition.

    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise quite
    how idiotic you are.

    Sloman, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.

    But you are totally incapable of posting a single item of information to support that claim. I'm a real person and there is a lot of web accessible information about me - including a photo.

    I doubt if you will be able to find even that.

    Hey Sloman, "terminal stupidity" is advocating NUKING YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY!!! Whenever I post things that support my claim you say "it's not worth my time to look at it."

    What I actually do is point out that that wasn't precisely what I was proposing, but you are very fond of your misrepresentation of what I was proposing, and totally incapable of realising that it is a misrepresentation.

    Why don't you stop IMPERSONATING Bill Sloman?

    I've been doing it since I was born. It has got to be a habit. There's not a lot of competition for the role, which is more demanding than you seem to be able to realise, and not extravagantly well paid..

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sun Apr 10 22:27:58 2022
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried him
    if he hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the
    Clinton campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of result
    can't be high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!
    Flyguy has this self-serving delusion that his contentless assertions represent educational knowledge. They do educate us about Flyguy's terminal stupidity, but we already knew more than we wanted to know about that.

    If he wanted to look as if he knew what he was talking about he'd at least provide a URL where I could submit a complaint, or a least get intelligible instructions on where to submit such a
    complaint, but he isn't up to managing that kind of practical detail. Probably because I can't, but he doesn't worry about that kind of real-world detail.
    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!
    How? I'm not an American (or an idiot). Flyguy is both so he could improve American society by completely removing himself from it - as opposed to be being locked up in an asylum for the terminally deranged which seems likely to be his current
    condition.
    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise
    quite how idiotic you are.

    Sloman, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.

    But you are totally incapable of posting a single item of information to support that claim. I'm a real person and there is a lot of web accessible information about me - including a photo.

    I doubt if you will be able to find even that.
    And he couldn't.

    Hey Sloman, you CLAIM to be a "real person." Who the fuck knows who you REALLY ARE???

    Nobody as stupid as Flyguy, obviously. Brighter people could use google to find out a bit.

    <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&btnG=>
    What we DO know is that you are an IDIOT!
    You do seem to have persuaded yourself that this fatuous assertion is worth making. As the link above should make clear - probably only to people a bit brighter than you are - is that I am clever enough to have published papers in the peer-reviewed
    scientific literature. This won't mean anything to you, but it is the kind of evidence of a certain minimal intellectual competence that is hard to fake.

    Hey Sloman, ANYBODY could post that bullshit, you dolt. Even I could!

    Anybody could have posted that link. That's what the web is good for.

    What you don't know - and haven't got any way of finding out, short of the sort of exhaustive web search that you clearly can't manage - is that I've talked here - over the past twenty years - about most of the papers listed there.

    People have asked me for copies of the 1996 millidegree paper "A microcontroller-based driver to stabilize the temperature of an optical stage to within 1 mK in the range, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor AW Sloman, P Buggs, J Molloy… -
    … Science and Technology, 1996 - iopscience.iop.org" and I've been able to send them reprints. A sufficiently demented conspiracy theory buff could probably work out a way that I could have done this without actually having written the paper, but it'
    s harder to invent a plausilbe explanation of why I might have bothered.

    I'd like to be able post some of the editorial correspondence, but it happened a couple of computers ago.

    That paper includes a self-citation of "Sloman A W 1978 J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 11 967–8" which was an 18-year earlier comment, which would have been even harder to fake.

    You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!

    I'm sure that you imagine that this is true. Sadly for your reputation, it isn't remotely correct.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 11 08:17:23 2022
    Bozo is my biggest fan...


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Mon Apr 11 01:31:37 2022
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 6:17:29 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Bill is my biggest fan...

    John Doe underestimates his comic appeal. He puts his foot in his own mouth so often that it is difficult to resist the temptation to send him up up even more extravagantly than he sends himself up. He may be striving to be sea-green un-send-up-able, but
    he hasn't got there yet.

    I do appreciate his performances, but the charm lies in their uniquely execrable quality. Flyguy is dumber, but John Doe is creepier.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Mon Apr 11 20:59:29 2022
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:28:02 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late
    Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    "Durham also revealed he has unearthed a text message showing Hillary
    Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann falsely told the FBI he was not
    working on behalf of any client when he delivered now-discredited
    anti-Trump research in the lead-up to the 2016 election. In fact, he was
    working for the Clinton campaign and another client, prosecutors say."

    Then about the text message...

    "Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and
    sensitive) I need to discuss," Sussmann texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016,
    according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short
    meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own - not on behalf of a client or
    company - want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

    The title is just for fun. Don't care whether it reaches Hillary Clinton
    or not. I do care about the election interference and the incessant fake
    collusion interference against a duly elected president.
    John Doe's idea of "fun" seems quite close to criminal libel.

    His perception of the Mueller inquiry - which look at real Russian interference on Trump's behalf in the 2016 Presidential election - as directed as Trump's collusion (if any) in that process - is entirely demented.

    Durham's idea that Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said that he was personally worried about what he'd found out about that interference is also pretty odd. Sussmann wouldn't have been exposed to the evidence that worried
    him if he hadn't been working for the Clinton campaign at the time, but he doesn't have to have been worried about it on Clinton's behalf. Christopher Steele was equally worried by what he found, and didn't think that merely passing on his report to the
    Clinton campaign team discharged his responsibilities as a former intelligence officer.

    John Doe doesn't seem to be worried by the idea that Putin helped get Trump elected, nor is he worried by the nice things Trump is still saying about Putin.

    He has a remarkably selective set of anxieties.

    Hey Sloman, submit a complaint against John Durham.

    On what grounds? I'm not an American citizen - Durham's delusions are your problem, not mine.

    But you WON'T because you are ALL TALK and NO ACTION!!

    Durham seems to have the same problem. He's made a lot of noise but he doesn't seem to have convicted anybody yet.

    And when only clowns like John Doe and Flyguy take him seriously you get to understand why. It's got to be a process set up to keep Trump happy, and now that Trump is out of power, the motivation to spend enough to get any kind of
    result can't be high.

    ANYONE can submit a complaint, but you KNOW that already!

    How would I know that? The whole process is happening in the USA, and it all sounds completely nuts - probably because John Doe is the only source of information I've got on it.

    Well, that's actually an insightful comment because it is apparent that you don't know SHIT! But now YOU DO, so feigning ignorance is NO EXCUSE!!
    Flyguy has this self-serving delusion that his contentless assertions represent educational knowledge. They do educate us about Flyguy's terminal stupidity, but we already knew more than we wanted to know about that.

    If he wanted to look as if he knew what he was talking about he'd at least provide a URL where I could submit a complaint, or a least get intelligible instructions on where to submit such a
    complaint, but he isn't up to managing that kind of practical detail. Probably because I can't, but he doesn't worry about that kind of real-world detail.
    You won't because you are all TALK and NO ACTION!

    I'm entertained by American idiocies. I'm not silly enough to think that I can do anything to help cure them, and I wouldn't want the American security services to think that I might try.

    You could help cure IDIOCY by DYING!
    How? I'm not an American (or an idiot). Flyguy is both so he could improve American society by completely removing himself from it - as opposed to be being locked up in an asylum for the terminally deranged which seems likely to be his current
    condition.
    I know your types - WELL!!

    People who aren't quite as demented as you are? You may be able to recognise us, but you can't think clearly enough to know anything about us. That doesn't stop you from imagining that you do - part of your idiocy is your failure to realise
    quite how idiotic you are.

    Sloman, I know FAR MORE about you than you REALIZE, you fool.

    But you are totally incapable of posting a single item of information to support that claim. I'm a real person and there is a lot of web accessible information about me - including a photo.

    I doubt if you will be able to find even that.
    And he couldn't.

    Hey Sloman, you CLAIM to be a "real person." Who the fuck knows who you REALLY ARE???

    Nobody as stupid as Flyguy, obviously. Brighter people could use google to find out a bit.

    <https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&btnG=>
    What we DO know is that you are an IDIOT!
    You do seem to have persuaded yourself that this fatuous assertion is worth making. As the link above should make clear - probably only to people a bit brighter than you are - is that I am clever enough to have published papers in the peer-reviewed
    scientific literature. This won't mean anything to you, but it is the kind of evidence of a certain minimal intellectual competence that is hard to fake.

    Hey Sloman, ANYBODY could post that bullshit, you dolt. Even I could!

    Anybody could have posted that link. That's what the web is good for.

    What you don't know - and haven't got any way of finding out, short of the sort of exhaustive web search that you clearly can't manage - is that I've talked here - over the past twenty years - about most of the papers listed there.

    People have asked me for copies of the 1996 millidegree paper "A microcontroller-based driver to stabilize the temperature of an optical stage to within 1 mK in the range, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor AW Sloman, P Buggs, J Molloy…
    - … Science and Technology, 1996 - iopscience.iop.org" and I've been able to send them reprints. A sufficiently demented conspiracy theory buff could probably work out a way that I could have done this without actually having written the paper, but it'
    s harder to invent a plausilbe explanation of why I might have bothered.

    I'd like to be able post some of the editorial correspondence, but it happened a couple of computers ago.

    That paper includes a self-citation of "Sloman A W 1978 J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 11 967–8" which was an 18-year earlier comment, which would have been even harder to fake.
    You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!
    I'm sure that you imagine that this is true. Sadly for your reputation, it isn't remotely correct.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Just another mediocre impersonation of someone else, SNIPPERMAN - who the hell ARE YOU, anyhow?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Tue Apr 12 04:33:15 2022
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:59:32 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:28:02 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

    <snip>

    You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!

    I'm sure that you imagine that this is true. Sadly for your reputation, it isn't remotely correct.

    Just another mediocre impersonation of someone else, Sloman - who the hell ARE YOU, anyhow?

    If you knew enough about me to be able to insist that I'm doing a mediocre impersonation of myself, you would be able to answer your own question. The short answer is - somebody smarter than you are - but that must cover about 99.5% of the population.

    The longer answer is that your senile dementia leaves you feeling confused all the time, and you'd feel less confused if you stopped wasting time posting nonsense questions.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 14 01:06:17 2022
    Latest news, trivia...
    The judge denied Sussmann's motion to dismiss the case.
    Maybe the trial starts next month, May.
    If it's not too late, the guy should make a deal.









    I wrote:

    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-
    bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    <snip>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Wed Apr 13 20:12:29 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 11:06:24 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    John Durham's team just cited more evidence Clinton campaign lawyer
    Michael Sussmann lied to the FBI General Counsel, in a court filing late Monday (yesterday). I will get to the filing soon.

    https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/durham-bombshell-fbi-text-message-shows-clinton-lawyer

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Solomon_(political_commentator)

    John Doe does like this kind of far-right conspiracy theory peddler.

    <snip>

    Latest news, trivia...
    The judge denied Sussmann's motion to dismiss the case.
    Maybe the trial starts next month, May.
    If it's not too late, the guy should make a deal.

    Probably not. The FBI seems to have started the investigation to make Donald Trump happy, and are likely to end up with egg on their face in consequence.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 14 05:02:35 2022
    Bozo is an Australian troll.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo lying)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo being weird)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Wed Apr 13 23:26:55 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 3:02:41 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Bill is an Australian troll.

    John Doe gets that half right. I am Australian, but I'm not actually a troll. He is a troll and makes a habit of posting that kind of fatuous allegation, along with a whole lot more - equally fatuous - nonsense. He's an irritating idiot with a habit of
    posting his silly ideas in forums where they aren't welcome.

    A definition of an internet troll that I've found is "An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. They can
    come in many forms. Most trolls do this for their own amusement, but other forms of trolling are done to push a specific agenda."

    John Doe does fit that definition. If he has a specific agenda it might be one of supporting Donald Trump, but it may be that he is merely stupid enough to take Trump seriously.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu Apr 14 11:20:46 2022
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:33:20 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:59:32 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:28:02 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    <snip>
    You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!

    I'm sure that you imagine that this is true. Sadly for your reputation, it isn't remotely correct.

    Just another mediocre impersonation of someone else, Sloman - who the hell ARE YOU, anyhow?

    If you knew enough about me to be able to insist that I'm doing a mediocre impersonation of myself, you would be able to answer your own question. The short answer is - somebody smarter than you are - but that must cover about 99.5% of the population.

    The longer answer is that your senile dementia leaves you feeling confused all the time, and you'd feel less confused if you stopped wasting time posting nonsense questions.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Smarter than me??? Are you SERIOUS, SNIPPERMAN???? Get REAL: you want to NUKE and FIREBOMB your own country!!!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Apr 14 21:57:44 2022
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 4:20:50 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:33:20 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:59:32 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:28:02 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

    <snip>

    You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!

    I'm sure that you imagine that this is true. Sadly for your reputation, it isn't remotely correct.

    Just another mediocre impersonation of someone else, Sloman - who the hell ARE YOU, anyhow?

    If you knew enough about me to be able to insist that I'm doing a mediocre impersonation of myself, you would be able to answer your own question. The short answer is - somebody smarter than you are - but that must cover about 99.5% of the population.

    The longer answer is that your senile dementia leaves you feeling confused all the time, and you'd feel less confused if you stopped wasting time posting nonsense questions.

    Smarter than me??? Are you SERIOUS, Sloman???? Get REAL: you want to NUKE and FIREBOMB your own country!!!!!

    You are dumb enough to misunderstand stuff that I've posted as implying that. You do have talent for moronic misapprehension, but construing that as making you "smart" is just one more moronic misapprehension.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Fri Apr 15 18:32:36 2022
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 9:57:48 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 4:20:50 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:33:20 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:59:32 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:28:02 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

    <snip>

    You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!

    I'm sure that you imagine that this is true. Sadly for your reputation, it isn't remotely correct.

    Just another mediocre impersonation of someone else, Sloman - who the hell ARE YOU, anyhow?

    If you knew enough about me to be able to insist that I'm doing a mediocre impersonation of myself, you would be able to answer your own question. The short answer is - somebody smarter than you are - but that must cover about 99.5% of the
    population.

    The longer answer is that your senile dementia leaves you feeling confused all the time, and you'd feel less confused if you stopped wasting time posting nonsense questions.

    Smarter than me??? Are you SERIOUS, Sloman???? Get REAL: you want to NUKE and FIREBOMB your own country!!!!!

    You are dumb enough to misunderstand stuff that I've posted as implying that. You do have talent for moronic misapprehension, but construing that as making you "smart" is just one more moronic misapprehension.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, YOU are the one that wants to NUKE and FIREBOMB your own country, not ME!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri Apr 15 19:25:29 2022
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:32:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 9:57:48 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 4:20:50 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:33:20 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:59:32 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:28:02 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

    <snip>

    You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!

    I'm sure that you imagine that this is true. Sadly for your reputation, it isn't remotely correct.

    Just another mediocre impersonation of someone else, Sloman - who the hell ARE YOU, anyhow?

    If you knew enough about me to be able to insist that I'm doing a mediocre impersonation of myself, you would be able to answer your own question. The short answer is - somebody smarter than you are - but that must cover about 99.5% of the
    population.

    The longer answer is that your senile dementia leaves you feeling confused all the time, and you'd feel less confused if you stopped wasting time posting nonsense questions.

    Smarter than me??? Are you SERIOUS, Sloman???? Get REAL: you want to NUKE and FIREBOMB your own country!!!!!

    You are dumb enough to misunderstand stuff that I've posted as implying that. You do have talent for moronic misapprehension, but construing that as making you "smart" is just one more moronic misapprehension.

    Hey Sloman, YOU are the one that wants to NUKE and FIREBOMB your own country, not ME!

    Not exactly. You have decided that those were the implications of two different proposals I made. You happen to be wrong, but are incapable of realising that you have got it wrong, probably because you can't understand what I was actually proposing. You
    certainly haven't shown any signs of trying, and congenital idiocy would be an economical explanation of your persistent incomprehension. Rapid onset senile dementia would be another. We don't have any long term evidence about when you might have become
    floridly stupid, so rapid onset senile dementia would be the more economical explanation.
    You seem to be being looked after in a place that is silly enough to give you internet access, so your relatives can't be too bright either.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 00:34:51 2022
    Out of respect for anyone who has ignored this thread...

    Here is the next John Durham team filing.

    Haven't read it yet. Most interesting should be the part about the
    defendant demanding the prosecutor "Immunize Tech Executive-1".

    I don't understand how that works. How can one (assumed) criminal say "You cannot prosecute me unless you immunize the other criminal so he can
    testify in support of me". My main author suggested there is precedent on
    the matter, but she didn't spell it out. Now we get to read what Durham
    has to say about that. Does he say it's ridiculous?

    This one's not long as the last (monster).

    This is my first edit, for easier text-to-speech reading...







    GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND
    RULE 404(b) OBJECTIONS.

    The United States of America, by and through its attorney, Special Counsel John H.

    Durham, respectfully provides herein its Opposition to the Defendant’s Motions in Limine and Rule

    404(b) Objections. As set forth in further detail below, all of the evidence that the Government

    seeks to offer at trial is relevant, admissible, and not unduly prejudicial, and the defendant’s

    objections to the Government’s Rule 404(b) notices are without merit.

    I. The Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Matters
    Purportedly Subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege Should Be Denied.

    The defendant moves to preclude the Government from (i) introducing privilege logs into

    evidence, (ii) showing redacted documents to the jury where information has been withheld based

    on assertions of attorney-client privilege, and (iii) identifying for the jury the name of the party or

    parties asserting privilege over such documents. The defendant’s motion to preclude such evidence

    lacks merit. Given the circumstances of this case and the content of the defendant’s alleged false

    statement, the non-privileged fact that communications occurred between the defendant and

    specific persons and entities (such as Tech Executive-1 and the U.S. Investigative Firm) is highly

    probative to establish the falsity and materiality of the defendant’s alleged false statement that he

    was not acting on behalf of any client. Accordingly, such evidence is admissible.

    As an initial matter, the Government currently expects to introduce all, or nearly all, of the

    above-described evidence through actual redacted documents, rather than privilege logs. Thus,

    while courts have found that privilege logs may indeed be presented to juries with judicial oversight,

    see, e.g., Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 216CV00052JRGRSP, 2017 WL

    7052463, at *1–2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2017) (in limine order requiring parties to approach the bench

    or provide explanation to the Court before offering privilege log at trial), the Government here seeks

    primarily to offer email “header” information containing the date, time, sender, recipient, copied

    parties, and subject line of relevant communications—all of which is non-privileged. (The content

    of such emails have been redacted at the request of the relevant privilege holders.)

    The crux of the Indictment’s allegation is that the defendant falsely stated that he was not

    working for any client in connection with the Russian Bank-1 allegations. The redacted, non-

    privileged emails that the Government seeks to admit are therefore highly probative insofar as they

    reflect “to,” “from,” and subject line information of communications between and among the

    defendant and his alleged clients or their agents. For example, the Government expects to offer

    redacted, non-privileged documents containing header information of communications1:

    ? between the defendant and Tech Executive-1;

    Note 1:
    The Government also intends to offer redacted billing records reflecting the defendant’s
    work on behalf of the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1. It is unclear whether the defendant
    also objects to the admission of such evidence. The Government contends that such billing records
    are admissible on the same bases as set forth herein with respect to redacted emails.

    ? between and among the defendant, Tech Executive-1, Campaign Lawyer-1, and the

    U.S. Investigative Firm employees; and

    ? between and among Campaign Lawyer-1 and Clinton Campaign leadership.

    These email headers constitute straightforward, non-privileged proof that the defendant was in fact

    working on behalf of two clients (i.e., the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1) when he

    conveyed the Russian Bank-1 allegations to the FBI. Indeed, in a case about an alleged false denial

    of attorney-client relationships, there are few things more probative than non-privileged records

    evidencing communications between an attorney and his clients.

    The primary cases the defendant cites to bar such evidence are inapposite. See, e.g.¸ Parker

    v. Prudential Insurance Co., 900 F. 2d 772, 775 (4th Cir. 1990); Nabisco, Inc. v. PF Brands, Inc.,

    191 F.3d 208, 226 (2d Cir. 1999); In re: Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No 14-MD-2543

    (JMF), 20154 WL 8130449, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015); In re EpiPen Mktg. Sales Pracs. &

    Antitrust Litig., No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TFF, 2022 WL 226130 (D. Kan. Jan. 26, 2022); Goldberg

    v. 401 N. Wabash Venture LLC, No. 09 C 6455, 2013 WL 1816162, at *2–4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29,

    2013). In none of those cases did the core factual issue to be decided by the jury include the

    existence or non-existence of an attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, unlike here, facts

    concerning communications between lawyer and client were, at most, peripheral to the issues to be

    decided at trial. And in those cases, the relevant courts did not hold or presume that there was a

    categorical bar to the admission of privilege logs, redacted documents, or similar evidence. For

    example, in In re EpiPen, the Court merely held that the plaintiffs had not made “any showing at

    this stage that the privilege logs are relevant.” 2022 WL 226130 at * 17. (emphasis added).

    Similarly, in In re Gen Motors LLC, the Court held that despite the Court’s instructions that the

    parties should seek to avoid privilege invocations before the jury, “the likelihood of some references

    seems high [and] [i]n anticipation of that possibility, the parties shall confer and propose appropriate

    limiting instructions.” 20154 WL 8130449, at *4. And finally, in Goldberg, the Court precluded

    reference to certain attorney-client communications because the proffered purpose for admitting

    them would have supported a prejudicial inference that the defendants acted “fraudulently” by

    ignoring the advice of their counsel. 2013 WL 1816162, at *2–4.

    Here, by contrast, the Government does not seek to establish any specific inferences, much

    less prejudicial ones, about the substance of the legal advice that the defendant conveyed to Tech

    Executive-1 or the Clinton Campaign (beyond the subject matter of that advice). Rather, it seeks

    to establish the existence of advice-giving relationships concerning the Russian Bank-1 allegations.

    And unlike in the cases that the defendant cites, the alleged crime here indisputably concerns and

    centers upon the existence of such relationships. Because attorney-client privileged information

    cannot itself be reviewed by the Government or presented to the jury, this non-privileged header

    information is in many instances the Government’s best, and in some cases the only, available

    evidence that particular communications occurred.

    In light of these facts, and consistent with prior caselaw, the Government therefore submits

    that the appropriate course is to permit the admission of redacted, non-privileged documents while

    allowing the parties to propose any limiting instructions that may be appropriate. See, e.g., Romero

    v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co., No. 15-CV-00720-NYW, 2017 WL 3268878, at *4 (D.

    Colo. Aug. 1, 2017) (permitting the presentation of redacted, attorney-client privileged documents

    before the jury but holding that “[t]he court will also instruct the jury. . . that some redactions to

    documents have been made and that the jury should not speculate as to what has been redacted);

    United States v. Sussman, 709 F.3d 155, 175 (3d Cir. 2013) (District Court “did not abuse its

    discretion by allowing redacted documents to be admitted into evidence and used by the jury during

    deliberations rather than confining the reference to them to a stipulation of their existence”); In re:

    E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Inj. Litig., No. 2:13-CV-170, 2016 WL 659112, at *60

    (S.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2016) (“[relevant] emails were in no way unfairly prejudicial . . . because the

    purportedly objectionable portions were redacted.”)2; In re EpiPen, 2022 WL 226130 at * 17.

    Note 2:
    The District Court in In re: E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co instructed the jury as follows:

    There will be some documents in this case that will have evidence
    that may be admissible and also some evidence in the document that
    would not be admissible. In that case there will be redactions or
    blackening out of those parts of the document that are not proper
    under the rules of evidence and does not constitute evidence that you
    should consider. So, I instruct you to simply ignore what has been
    blacked out. Don’t guess or speculate as to what's been blacked out.
    But then just treat what’s left in the document as proper evidence for
    your consideration.

    Finally, the defendant’s argument that the Court should bar the Government from offering

    evidence that the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1 have asserted the privilege over

    particular documents is similarly without merit. It is manifestly relevant to the charged offense that

    both the Clinton Campaign and Tech Executive-1 have asserted attorney-client privilege over

    documents involving the defendant that concern or relate to the Russian Bank-1 allegations. Such

    information is inherently probative because – as alleged in the Indictment – the defendant claimed

    he did not assemble those allegations on behalf of any client. For this reason, the Clinton

    Campaign’s and Tech Executive-1’s privilege claims over documents relating to the Russian Bank-1

    allegations naturally undermine, and tend to refute, the defendant’s assertion to the FBI General

    Counsel. They are therefore highly probative.

    Moreover, the mere fact that these specific privilege holders have applied or requested

    redactions is not unduly prejudicial because it reflects nothing more than a claimed legal interest in

    particular documents and does not give rise to inferences that would inflame, confuse, or bias the

    jury’s deliberations. Indeed, by moving to preclude this information, the defendant seeks to have

    it both ways: namely, he seeks to shield the jury from the contents of relevant communications

    based on purported privilege being asserted by his former clients, but also seeks to prevent the jury

    from learning basic, non-privileged facts about the identities of such clients who are asserting the

    privilege. Because the aforementioned assertions of privilege make it more likely that the defendant

    lied to the FBI General Counsel in stating that he was not acting on behalf of any client, they are

    highly probative and not unduly prejudicial.


    II. The Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Testimony Pertaining to Notes Taken by
    Former FBI Officials Should be Denied.

    A. The Notes Are Admissible as Substantive Evidence of Prior Consistent
    Statements.

    The defendant next seeks to exclude any evidence or testimony concerning notes reflecting

    the FBI General Counsel’s prior consistent statements, even though it is close to certain that the

    defense will attack this witness’s credibility, veracity, and memory in opening arguments and on

    cross-examination. In support, the defendant asserts that in order for the prior consistent statements

    to be admissible, they must first qualify under the hearsay exception for past recollection recorded.

    Alternatively, the defendant claims that admission of these prior consistent statements would

    amount to improper bolstering of the witness’s testimony. But defendant’s assertions are

    misguided, as Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) governs the admissibility of the witness’s

    prior consistent statements.

    As set forth in the Government’s motion in limine, Rule 801(d)(1)(B) specifically provides

    two independent bases for the admission of his prior consistent statements as substantive evidence.

    First, where the declarant testifies at trial, his prior consistent statements are “not hearsay” if

    admitted “to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or

    improper influence or motive.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). As the Supreme Court has made clear,

    the earlier statement is admissible as substantive evidence—i.e., for the truth of the matter

    asserted—to rebut a charge of recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive, provided that the

    statement was made prior to any motive to fabricate. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 162

    (1995). Second, a declarant’s prior statement that is consistent with his trial testimony is also

    admissible when offered to rehabilitate the witness’s credibility where the witness is attacked on

    another ground, such as inconsistency or faulty memory. See United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687,

    705 (2d Cir. 2019) (affirming trial court’s admission of notes as prior consistent statements after

    defendant’s opening statement challenged witness’s memory).

    The Government’s evidence at trial will establish that shortly after his meeting in which the

    defendant falsely stated that he was not there on behalf of any client, the FBI General Counsel spoke

    to the FBI’s then-Assistant Director for Counterintelligence (“Assistant Director”) and to one of his

    Deputy General Counsels (“Deputy General Counsel”) and relayed details of his meeting with the

    defendant. Given that defendant made his false statement directly to the FBI General Counsel, the

    defense likely will seek to impeach his testimony in opening statements and/or on cross-

    examination.3 In either instance, once the defense attacks the FBI General Counsel’s testimony in

    such a manner, his statements are admissible as substantive evidence of prior consistent statements.

    See United States v. Montague, 958 F.2d 1094, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (stating that “when a defense

    attorney pursues a line of questioning designed to impugn the motives of a witness, she assumes

    the risk that the government will introduce rebuttal evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)); United

    States v. O’Connor, 650 F.3d 839, 862-63 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirming trial court’s admission of prior

    consistent statements before declarant’s testimony where defense began attack on witness’s

    credibility in opening argument). Moreover, these prior statements are admissible through the FBI

    General Counsel himself, or through another witness to the statements who is available for cross-

    examination. See Montague, 958 F.2d at 1099 (affirming trial court’s admission of prior consistent

    statement made by witness to police officer).

    Accordingly, contrary to the defense’s assertion that application of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) to the

    General Counsel’s prior statements would be “unprecedented,” the Rule’s application here is

    straightforward, routine, and entirely appropriate.

    Nor would the introduction of such testimony amount to “bolstering.” As described above,

    Rule 801(d)(1)(B) expressly prescribes and contemplates that such evidence is admissible under

    circumstances when the opposing party elects to attack the credibility or reliability of the witness’s

    testimony. Accordingly, such prior consistent statements necessarily are admissible to rebut attacks

    on the witness’s testimony and not to improperly bolster it.

    Note 3:
    The defense to date has not indicated that it will refrain from such argument.


    B. The Notes are Also Admissible Under the Hearsay Exception for Past
    Recollection Recorded.

    Separately, the contemporaneous notes of both the Assistant Director and the Deputy

    General Counsel are also admissible under the hearsay exception for past recollection recorded.

    Fed. Rule Evid. 805(3). To qualify as past recollection recorded, the proponent must establish a

    foundation that (i) the record is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well

    enough to testify fully and accurately; (ii) the record was made when the matter was fresh in the

    witness's memory; and (iii) the record accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge. Fed. R. Evid.

    803(5). While the precise thrust of the defendant’s argument is unclear, he seems to suggest that

    the Government has not met these factual predicates. But this argument puts the cart before the

    horse. Of course the Government has not yet laid the full factual predicate for the application of

    this exception because these witnesses have not yet testified at trial. The defendant’s reliance on

    selected quotes from those witnesses’ interview reports and/or prior grand jury testimony is of no

    moment. The Government was not required to lay the requisite foundation in the grand jury or in

    witness interviews where the prohibition against hearsay evidence is inapplicable. It can and will,

    however, establish a proper foundation at trial. As described in the Government’s motion in limine,

    the Government expects that both the Assistant Director and the Deputy General Counsel will

    testify that their notes were taken during one or more exchanges with the FBI General Counsel on

    September 19, 2016, but neither can recall a precise setting or specific details. In addition, the

    witnesses will testify that they took their respective notes contemporaneously, and that the notes

    accurately memorialized information they learned from the FBI General Counsel at that time. As

    such, the defendant’s assertions, which rest on cherry-picked phrases from interview reports and

    grand jury testimony, are unavailing. The notes at issue are text book past recollections recorded,

    and once the witnesses establish the proper foundation during their trial testimony, the notes may

    be read into evidence.  


    III. The Defendant’s Motion Seeking an Order to Compel the Government to
    Immunize Tech Executive-1 Should be Denied.

    The defendant next moves in limine to compel the government to grant Tech Executive-1

    immunity as a witness or, if the Government is not willing to do so, to dismiss the case against the

    defendant. The defendant’s arguments should be rejected. Indeed, to now arbitrarily force the

    Government to immunize Tech Executive-1 merely because the defense believes he would offer

    arguably helpful testimony to the defendant would run afoul of the law and inject the Court into

    matters plainly reserved to the Executive Branch.


    A. Applicable Law.

    “Generally, a trial court has no authority, in the absence of a request by the government, to

    provide use immunity for a defense witness.” See United States v. Heldt, 668 F.2d 1238, 1282-83

    (D.C. Cir. 1981). Indeed, “the government is under no general obligation to grant use immunity to

    witnesses the defense designates as potentially helpful to its cause but who will invoke the Fifth

    Amendment if not immunized.” United States v. Ebbers, 458 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing United

    States v. Turkish, 623 F.2d 769, 774 (2d Cir. 1980).

    Nevertheless, defense counsel asks the Court to present the Government with a drastic

    decision – either grant Tech Executive-1 immunity or dismiss the Indictment. The D.C. Circuit has

    suggested that such an approach should only be considered in “extraordinary circumstances” in

    cases of “prosecutorial misconduct.” United States v. Lugg, 829 F.2d 101, 104 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

    (citing to United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 935 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Praetorius, 622

    F.2d 1054, 1064 (2d Cir. 1979).

    In Ebbers, the Second Circuit set forth a two-pronged test to determine the “extraordinary

    circumstances” when a court must require the government to grant a defense witness immunity.

    According to Ebbers, a court first must determine whether the government has “used immunity in

    a discriminatory way, has forced a potential witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment through

    overreaching, or has deliberately denied immunity for the purpose of withholding exculpatory

    evidence and gaining a tactical advantage through such manipulation.” Ebbers, 458 F.3d at 119

    (internal citation and quotations omitted). The Ebbers court provided potential examples of a

    “discriminatory” grant of immunity, which include “threats, harassment, or other forms of

    intimidation,” or simply “a decision . . . to confer immunity on some witnesses and not on others.”

    With respect to this latter example, however, the court opined that “it may also be the case that the

    immunity decision in question are so obviously based on legitimate law enforcement concerns . . .

    that it is clear that a court cannot intervene without substantially hampering the administration of

    justice.” Id.

    Second under Ebbers, the defendant must demonstrate that evidence provided by an

    immunized witness “will be material, exculpatory and not cumulative and is not obtainable from

    any other source.” Ebbers, 458 F.3d at 119 (emphasis added). In that regard, “exculpatory evidence

    is material when it tends to show that the accused is not guilty.” Id. (quoting United States v.

    Gil, 297 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir. 2002)).

    Put plainly, “the Fifth Amendment does not require that defense witness immunity be

    ordered whenever it seems fair to grant it.” United States v. Bahadar, 954 F.2d 821, 825 (2d Cir.

    1992 (quotations and citations omitted). Absent some credible allegations of prosecutorial

    misconduct, it is solely in the government’s purview to grant immunity to witnesses.


    B. Discussion.

    The defendant’s argument fails for several reasons. First, the Government has in no way

    threatened, bullied, harassed or otherwise committed misconduct in its dealings with Tech

    Executive-1. Ebbers, 458 F.3d at 119. Indeed, the Government has never spoken directly with

    Tech Executive-1. It has instead communicated with his lawyer principally via telephone and email

    over the past two years. The Government did so initially to determine if Tech Executive-1 would

    be willing to meet with the Government and share his knowledge of these matters—an offer which

    his counsel repeatedly rejected on the basis of Tech Executive-1’s voluntary invocation of his Fifth

    Amendment right against self-incrimination. Since its initial communications with Tech

    Executive-1’s counsel, the Government also has repeatedly answered counsel’s questions regarding

    Tech Executive-1’s status in the investigation and has shared specific details regarding the nature

    of the investigation. Tech Executive-1 was a “subject” of the investigation prior to the defendant’s

    indictment; he remained a “subject” following the return of the indictment; and he still remains a

    “subject” one month short of trial. Thus, unlike in the cases cited by the defense, there can be no

    credible argument that the government improperly threatened Tech Executive-1 with prosecution,

    much less did so after learning that he might testify for the defense. Defense counsel has provided

    no examples of how the Government has “actively discouraged [Tech Executive-1] from testifying

    through threats of prosecution, intimidation, or coercive badgering.” Smith, 997 F.2d at 680.

    Note 4:
    In 2021, counsel on one occasion agreed to meet with the Government, purportedly to
    share certain information on behalf of his client, but abruptly canceled that meeting at the
    instruction of his client.
    Note 5:
    “A ‘subject’ of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand
    jury’s investigation.” Justice Manual 9-11.151.

    Merely responding to counsel’s inquiries about his client’s status in the investigation cannot

    reasonably be deemed “coercive.” Indeed, case law in this and other districts confirms that the

    Government must actively and improperly threaten a witness in connection with their testimony to

    warrant a grant of immunity. Otherwise, no adequate basis exists. See United States v. Davis, 974

    F.2d 182, 186 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment is not implicated every time a prosecutor

    or trial court offers advice regarding the penalties of perjury”); United States v. Smith, 478 F.2d 976

    (D.C. Cir. 1973) (prosecutors met with a potential defense witness during trial outside the presence

    of his counsel and threatened the witness with charges should he testify on behalf of the defendant);

    United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 227 (3rd Cir. 1976) (finding prosecutorial misconduct

    where “the actions of the prosecutor in his repeated warnings [to prosecute a potential defense

    witness] culminated in a highly intimidating personal interview were completely unnecessary”).

    Nothing the defense has alleged, and certainly nothing the Government has done here with regard

    to Tech Executive-1, even remotely resembles the conduct of the prosecutors in those other cases.

    Second, Defense counsel’s further entreaties that there is “no meaningful likelihood that

    [Tech Executive-1] will be prosecuted” because more than five years have passed since the

    defendant’s September 2016 meeting are based on naked and uninformed speculation. Indeed,

    defense counsel is not – and could not be – aware of all the evidence that the Government has

    collected and continues to collect, or of the possible violations of law it is investigating.

    Third, the defendant has not alleged – nor could he – that the Government has exercised

    “immunity in a discriminatory way.” Ebbers, 458 F.3d at 119. The only witness currently

    immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 –

    over a month prior to the defendant’s Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized

    Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work

    relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right

    against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2’s immunity in order

    to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech

    Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendant’s meeting with the FBI. To argue

    that the Government has engaged in a discriminatory use of immunity here by granting such a

    witness immunity but not another is absurd. Indeed, the Government’s decision not to offer

    immunity to Tech Executive-1 was entirely reasonable and consistent with the Department of

    Justice’s practices, given that Tech Executive-1 played a critical leadership role in assembling and

    submitting the allegations at issue, and therefore would likely carry greater criminal exposure and

    potential culpability in the event the Government’s investigation were to reveal or confirm the

    commission of crimes other than the offense currently charged. (The Government also currently

    intends to seek immunity at trial for an individual who was employed at the U.S. Investigative Firm.

    But unlike Tech Executive-1, that individual is considered a “witness” and not a “subject” of the

    Government’s investigation based on currently-known facts.)

    Finally, the defendant fails to plausibly allege – nor could he – that the Government here

    has “deliberately denied immunity for the purpose of withholding exculpatory evidence and gaining

    a tactical advantage through such manipulation.” Ebbers, 458 F. 3d at 119 (internal citation and

    quotations omitted). The defendant’s motion proffers that Tech Executive-1 would offer

    exculpatory testimony regarding his attorney-client relationship with the defendant, including that

    Tech Executive-1 agreed that the defendant should convey the Russian Bank-1 allegations to help

    the government, not to “benefit” Tech Executive-1. But that testimony would – if true – arguably

    contradict and potentially incriminate the defendant based on his sworn testimony to Congress in

    December 2017, in which he expressly stated that he provided the allegations to the FBI on behalf

    of an un-named client (namely, Tech Executive-1). And in any event, even if the defendant and his

    client did not seek specifically to “benefit” Tech Executive-1 through his actions, that still would

    not render his statement to the FBI General Counsel true. Regardless of who benefited or might

    have benefited from the defendant’s meeting, the fact still remains that the defendant conducted

    that meeting on behalf of (i) Tech Executive-1 (who assembled the allegations and requested that

    the defendant disseminate them) and (ii) the Clinton Campaign (which the defendant billed for

    some or all of his work). The proffered testimony is therefore not exculpatory, and certainly not

    sufficiently exculpatory to render the Government’s decision not to seek immunity for Tech

    Executive-1 misconduct or an abuse. The defendant therefore has not met his burden of

    demonstrating, among other things, that the evidence provided by an immunized witness would

    tend to show he is “not guilty.” Ebbers, 458 F.3d at 119.

    In sum, the Government has complied with its obligations under the law. Thus, “[w]hatever

    it takes to constitute a deprivation of a fair trial by the prosecution’s failure to exercise its broad

    discretion on immunity grants, the present case does not present it.” Lugg, 892 F.2d at 104. The

    Government respectfully submits that the Court should not grant the extraordinary relief sought by

    the defendant.

    Note 6:
    The defendant’s further proffer that Tech Executive-1 would testify that (i) the defendant
    contacted Tech Executive-1 about sharing the name of a newspaper with the FBI General Counsel,
    (ii) Tech Executive-1 and his associates believed in good faith the Russian Bank-1 allegations, and
    (iii) Tech Executive-1 was not acting at the direction of the Clinton Campaign, are far from
    exculpatory. Indeed, even assuming that all of those things were true, the defendant still would
    have materially misled the FBI in stating that he was not acting on behalf of any client when, in
    fact, he was acting at Tech Executive-1’s direction and billing the Clinton Campaign.


    IV. The Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Evidence Concerning the Gathering and
    Accuracy of DNS Data and Related Analysis Should be Denied.

    The defendant next moves to preclude evidence concerning (i) the gathering of DNS data

    by Tech Executive-1 and his associates, and (ii) the accuracy vel non of this data and of the

    conclusions and analysis based on such data. The defendant’s arguments downplay or misstate

    relevant facts and fail to cite supporting law. Accordingly, the Court should deny the defendant’s

    motion.

    As to the gathering of DNS data by Tech Executive-1 and his associates, evidence reflecting

    such activities is a necessary factual backdrop to the charged conduct and therefore is plainly

    admissible. In particular, facts concerning when, why, and how Tech Executive-1 came to possess

    and/or convey the purported data and analysis are all relevant to the jury’s understanding of the


    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 00:37:43 2022
    more lines, but it's doublespaced

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 9 09:55:59 2022
    This is one of the judge's recent rulings, as always formatted for text to speech reading. This time removed case numbers (or whatever) that are unnecessary for non-legal purposes.



    Legal Standards.

    “Motions in limine are ‘designed to narrow the evidentiary issues for trial
    and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions.’” Graves v. District of Columbia, (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., (3d
    Cir. 1990)). They are not a vehicle to resolve factual disputes or weigh the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. “Rather, parties should target their
    arguments to demonstrating why certain items or categories of evidence
    should (or should not) be introduced at trial, and direct the trial judge to specific evidence in the record that would favor or disfavor the
    introduction of those particular items or categories of evidence.” Id. at 11 (citing United States ex rel. El–Amin v. George Washington Univ. (D.D.C. 2008)). Trial judges retain broad discretion in making evidentiary rulings, including determining the probative value or prejudicial effect of evidence. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, (2008). Evidence is only admissible
    if it is relevant—meaning it “has any tendency to make a fact [of
    consequence] more or less probable than it would be without the evidence,”
    Fed. R. Evid. 401—and its probative value is not “substantially outweighed
    by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

    II.

    Analysis.

    A.

    Evidence Regarding the Gathering of the Data The first motion presented involves the data that Mr. Sussmann provided to the FBI. The data was
    supplied to Mr. Sussmann by technology executive Rodney Joffe, and was
    claimed to support the existence of an internet communications channel
    between Donald Trump and Russia’s Alfa Bank. The government has notified the defense under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) that it intends to seek
    admission of evidence concerning how that data was gathered. Gov’t Suppl. Notice at 2 (Mar. 23, 2022). This evidence includes, according to the government, facts suggesting that the “data was obtained in a manner that
    may be considered objectionable.” Id. By that, the government presumably is referring to an allegation that Mr. Joffe accessed some of the data in
    breach of certain cybersecurity-related contracts he or his companies had
    with the U.S. government. Indeed, the government has indicated to Mr.
    Joffe’s counsel that his conduct with respect to the data remains subject to criminal investigation by a grand jury. More on that later. The government contends that evidence about the origins and gathering of the data
    constitutes direct proof of the crime charged against Mr. Sussmann—a sole
    count of lying to the FBI about whether he was providing the data and
    related “white papers” on behalf of any client—because it provides
    “important factual context for the defendant’s conduct” and tends to show
    the existence of attorney-client relationships between the defendant and
    both Mr. Joffe and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Id. The government further argues that, if the Court deems the data-gathering
    evidence not to be intrinsic to the charged offense, it is still admissible under Rule 404(b) as “other act” evidence going the defendant’s motive,
    intent, preparation, plan, and absence of mistake or accident. The defense moves to exclude this evidence, at least to the extent that Mr. Sussmann was uninvolved in or unaware of the data collection effort. This dispute is
    framed by the parties’ competing theories of how the data came to be. In
    brief, the government contends that the Alfa Bank data was gathered as part
    of a concerted effort to collect and disseminate derogatory opposition
    research about Donald Trump. Participants in this purported joint
    undertaking, according to the government, include the Clinton Campaign; the Campaign’s General Counsel and then-partner in the Perkins Coie law firm,
    Marc Elias; an investigative firm retained by Mr. Elias, Fusion GPS; the defendant; Mr. Joffe; and several computer researchers working at Mr.
    Joffe’s direction. The government has proffered the existence of at least
    some circumstantial evidence connecting Mr. Sussmann to certain aspects of
    the data gathering effort. See Gov’t Opp’n to Def.’s Mots. in Lim. at 17–18, ECF No. 70 (promising that testimony will establish that Mr. Sussmann was
    aware of the “corporate sources” of the data and assured Researcher-2 that
    the data had been lawfully collected); Indictment ¶¶ 20, 23 (alleging that beginning in mid-August, Mr. Sussmann, Mr. Joffe, and Mr. Elias met on two different occasions and, shortly thereafter, Mr. Joffe emailed the
    researchers about the data); id. ¶ 24 (describing billing entries indicating that Mr. Sussmann helped draft one of the white papers that was provided to
    the FBI). The government contends that Mr. Sussmann’s desire to conceal this joint venture—particularly the Clinton Campaign’s involvement—supplied a
    motive for him to misrepresent to Mr. Baker that he was not providing the
    data to the FBI on behalf of any client, when he was actually representing
    both Mr. Joffe and the Campaign. The defense paints a different picture. As
    the Court gleans from various of the defense’s pleadings and arguments, its case will be that Mr. Joffe obtained and analyzed the relevant data independently of Mr. Sussmann and the Clinton Campaign; that Mr. Joffe
    enlisted the defendant, with whom he a preexisting attorney-client relationship, for legal advice on how to handle and disseminate the data to
    a wider audience; that Mr. Sussmann reasonably believed, based on the understanding of the data that he gained from Mr. Joffe, that it tended to support the existence of a communications link between Alfa Bank and Mr.
    Trump; that Mr. Sussmann and Mr. Joffe shared the view that bringing the potential communications channel to the FBI’s attention was important to protect national security, regardless of any political implications; and
    that Mr. Sussmann sought an audience with Mr. Baker for that purpose. The defense has acknowledged that Mr. Sussmann at least received the data in connection with his legal representation of Mr. Joffe, see Mot. Hr’g Tr. at 38:6–18, but (as the Court understands) denies that he had an attorney-
    client relationship with the Clinton Campaign that covered activities
    related to the Alfa Bank data. The jury is entitled to hear both these narratives. The parties may therefore bring out otherwise admissible trial evidence supporting their competing theories regarding the gathering and use
    of the data. Permissible areas of inquiry include how the data came into
    being and who was involved in its collection and analysis, as well as how
    Mr. Sussmann came to possess the data, what he did with it, and why. The
    basis for admission of the evidence depends on its purpose. To the extent
    the evidence shows that Mr. Sussmann’s involvement in the data gathering was part of legal work for either Mr. Joffe or the Clinton Campaign, it is “intrinsic” to the charged offense. The D.C. Circuit defines intrinsic
    evidence as “that [which] is part of the charged offense,” and “uncharged
    acts performed contemporaneously with the charged crime . . . if they facilitate the commission of the charged crime.” United States v. Bowie,
    (D.C. Cir. 2000). Evidence of Mr. Sussmann’s client work is “part of the charged offense” because in order to prove the alleged lie to the FBI, the government necessarily must prove that Mr. Sussmann was in fact
    representing a client. Otherwise, this evidence may be offered for a proper 404(b) purpose, the most applicable of which is Mr. Sussmann’s purported
    motive for concealing the political nature of the Alfa Bank data effort. The Court will impose certain limitations on the use of this evidence, however.
    As the Court previously ruled, unless the defense opens the door for
    admission by vouching for the data, the government will not be permitted to
    put on extensive evidence about its accuracy. See Data Order at 3–4. The
    Court will also provisionally limit the presentation of evidence that the collection of the data by Mr. Joffe or others was somehow “objectionable.”
    The Special Counsel has not proffered sufficient evidence showing that Mr. Sussmann had concerns that the data was obtained inappropriately, or that he had any independent knowledge about the data collection beyond whatever he
    may have learned from Mr. Joffe through privileged communications. Evidence
    of improper data collection by Mr. Joffe or others done without Mr.
    Sussmann’s knowledge is, at best, only marginally probative of his supposed motive to lie to the FBI. United States v. George, 786 F. Supp. 56, 64
    (D.D.C. 1992); United States v. Libby, 467 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15–16 (D.D.C.
    2006) (evidence of “what others were told . . . will be excluded because it
    is simply irrelevant to the defendant’s state of mind”). Moreover, whether
    Mr. Joffe, who is not on trial, violated the terms of any of his contracts
    with the government—let alone committed a crime—is the type of collateral
    issue that risks confusing the jury and distracting from the pertinent
    issues in the case. See United States v. Fonseca, (D.C. Cir. 2006)
    (affirming exclusion of evidence that would have led to a “‘mini-trial’ on a collateral matter”); Wade v. Mantello, (2d Cir. 2003) (holding testimony supporting theory of third- party culpability properly excluded because “marginal relevance was outweighed by dangers of juror prejudice and confusion”).

    B.

    Emails Between Researchers, Mr. Joffe, Fusion, and the Press Having
    established the basic rules of the road for the data-gathering evidence, the Court turns to the defense’s objections to specific emails discussing the
    data that the Special Counsel has indicated he will seek to admit. In particular, the government seeks to admit emails between Mr. Joffe, two researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology (referred to in the indictment as Researcher-1 and Researcher-2), and another computer
    researcher who allegedly compiled the data at issue (referred to as Originator-1). In these emails, the researchers and Mr. Joffe discuss the
    data collection effort and their conclusions about the data. The government also seeks to admit a set of emails between Fusion GPS employees and members
    of the press. Gov’t Mot. in Lim. at 10, ECF No. 61. The Special Counsel
    offers two arguments for admission: (1) that the emails are not offered for their truth and are thus not hearsay; and (2) that the statements in the
    emails were made in furtherance of a joint venture between Mr. Sussmann, Mr. Joffe, and “representatives or agents” of the Clinton Campaign, and are thus admissible as non-hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Mr. Sussmann responds generally that (1) the statements are hearsay, as they are offered
    for their truth, (2) the Special Counsel has not established the existence
    of a joint venture, the necessary predicate to admit the statements as non- hearsay co-conspirator statements, and (3) the probative value of the statements at issue are outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay. “Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.” United States v. Thompson, (D.C. Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). An out-of-court statement offered for some other
    purpose, such as “elucidating a speaker’s or a listener’s state of mind,” is not hearsay. United States v. Williams, (D.C. Cir. 2004).

    However, a statement that merely gives “context” to another statement may nonetheless be hearsay, if the context provided by the statement depends on its truth. See United States v. Stover, (D.C. Cir. 2003); United States v. DeCologero, (1st Cir. 2008). The Special Counsel argues in the alternative
    that the emails may be admitted as co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) regardless of whether they are offered for their truth. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) provides: “A statement is not hearsay
    if . . . the statement is offered against a party and is . . . a statement
    by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.’” See Bourjaily v. United States, (1987) (alteration and
    omissions in original).

    Note 1.
    Statements that demonstrate the reasonableness of a belief, Crockett v. Abraham, (D.C. Cir. 2002), “establish the course of the investigation,”
    United States v. Taylor, (7th Cir. 2009), or constitute a “verbal act,”
    United States v. Stover, (D.C. Cir. 2003), are also not hearsay.

    The joint venture need not be a criminal one. United States v.
    Brockenborrugh, (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Despite its use of the word
    ‘conspiracy,’ Rule 801(d)(2)(E) allows for admission of statements by individuals acting in furtherance of a lawful joint enterprise.”). And, “as with all evidence,” any statements admitted into evidence must be relevant
    to a “fact of consequence in the case.” Williams, (cleaned up). “Moreover,
    such a statement may be excluded, even if relevant, if its probative value
    is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Evid. 403). With that background, the Court turns to the emails at issue. The first batch is comprised of emails exchanged between Mr. Joffe, Georgia Tech researchers Manos Antonakakis and David Dagon (Researchers 1
    and 2), and April Lorenzen, a third computer researcher unaffiliated with Georgia Tech (referred to as Originator-1) in August and September 2016.
    These individuals were not employees of Fusion GPS nor were they directly associated with the Clinton Campaign or Perkins Coie. None of these emails
    were sent or received by Mr. Sussmann. The emails generally reflect the researchers’ hypotheses about the data and the conclusions they believed
    could be drawn from it. The second batch of emails are between Fusion GPS employees and members of the press from mid-to-late October 2016. These
    emails appear to relate to Fusion’s attempts to disseminate the Alfa Bank allegations. Mr. Sussmann did not receive these emails either. The last
    email was sent by Mr. Joffe to one of his employees on November 17, 2016.
    The Court will first address whether the emails are non-hearsay—i.e.,
    whether they are being offered for something other than the truth of the matter asserted. For any remaining emails, the Court will next address
    whether the government can admit the emails as statements of co-conspirators
    in a lawful joint venture.

    1.

    Emails between Researchers and Mr. Joffe.

    The government argues that these emails are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show that the technical issues Mr. Joffe and
    the researchers discussed were the same issues Mr. Sussmann discussed with
    Mr. Joffe and Mr. Elias. According to the government, the fact that Mr.
    Joffe and the researchers corresponded about the data tends to prove that
    Mr. Sussmann had an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Joffe on the same topics. Gov’t Mot. in Lim. at 22, 29; (Apr. 27, 2022). This theory of
    relevance falls short. At most, these emails reveal that the Alfa Bank allegations were assembled and discussed by the researchers and Mr. Joffe.
    The emails were not sent or received by Mr. Sussmann nor do they mention
    him. On their faces, the emails reveal nothing about Mr. Sussmann’s attorney-client relationship with Mr. Joffe. “Relevant evidence, Rule 401
    tells us, is ‘evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
    less probable than it would be without the evidence.’” United States v.
    Foster, (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401). The fact of
    consequence at issue here is whether Mr. Sussmann represented Mr. Joffe in connection with assembling the data or providing it to the FBI. Emails
    between Mr. Joffe and third parties do not tend to make that fact any more
    or less probable than it would be without those emails. Accordingly, the
    emails are simply not relevant to the government’s stated purpose for
    offering them. The government also argues that the mere fact that a written record of the researchers’ concerns exists would provide Mr. Sussmann a
    motive to conceal the source of the data from the FBI. Under that theory,
    the government argues, the emails are not offered for their truth but simply
    to show the written record existed. Mot. Hr’g Tr. at 29:2–12. This theory
    fails as well. A written record of concerns would inform Mr. Sussmann’s
    motive to conceal only if he knew such a record existed. The Special Counsel has not established that Mr. Sussmann received these emails or was ever told about them. As of now, then, the emails are not relevant to his state of
    mind. Libby, (evidence of “what others were told . . . will be excluded
    because it is simply irrelevant to the defendant’s state of mind”); cf.
    United States v. Safavian, (D.D.C. 2006) (admitting certain emails received
    by the defendant to show his “state of mind at the time he received them”).
    The Court may revisit this determination if the government shows that Mr. Sussmann at some point received these emails or became aware of their
    contents. Finally, this first batch of emails is unlikely to be admissible
    for an independent reason: the emails reflect the researchers’ views on the accuracy of the data and how it was collected. The Court has already ruled
    that information about the accuracy of the data will not be admissible
    unless Mr. Sussmann opens the door. See Data Order at 2. Most of the emails
    the government has proffered so far relate to that exact issue. E.g., Gov’t Mot. in Lim. at 20 (email from Originator-1) (“I could fill out a sales form
    on two websites, faking the other company’s email address in each form, and cause them to communicate with each other in DNS.”); id. at 25 (email from Researcher-1) (“How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is
    not spoofed UDP traffic we are observing?”); id. at 27 (email from Originator-1) (“I firmly believe that [Russian Bank-1/Healthcare Company- 1]/Trump are communicating with that server . . . as an artifact of the processing.”). The Court has already ruled that these kinds of technical
    issues and conclusions about the data are not relevant unless further
    evidence at trial establishes that Mr. Sussmann knew about them. To the
    extent the government seeks to introduce other emails from the researchers
    that do not concern these topics, the Court will reserve judgment as to
    whether any particular email contains inadmissible hearsay, is relevant, or
    is more probative than unfairly prejudicial.

    2.

    Fusion Emails with the Press.

    The second batch of emails the government seeks to introduce are exchanges between Fusion GPS employees and various reporters dating from mid-late
    October 2016. These emails show that (1) Fusion employees urged reporters to write stories on the Trump-Alfa Bank connection, and (2) when presented with questions about the data, a Fusion employee directed a reporter to David
    Dagon (Researcher-2) for a response. Gov’t Mot. in Lim. at 30–31. These
    emails are admissible as non-hearsay because the Special Counsel does not appear to be offering them for their truth, but rather to demonstrate that Fusion GPS and the researchers shared the ultimate goal of disseminating the Alfa Bank allegations to the press. The email referencing David Dagon also shows that at least one employee of Fusion was familiar with Dagon and suggested a member of the press contact him. Accordingly, the Court will provisionally hold that these emails can be admitted, subject to proper foundation and a limiting instruction that they are not to be considered for the truth of the matter asserted. The Court will reserve judgment as to the admissibility of any additional email it has not yet seen.

    3.

    Emails from Mr. Joffe.

    The Special Counsel has also identified three emails from Mr. Joffe that it seeks to introduce, either as non-hearsay statements or as co-conspirator statements.

    The first one was sent from Mr. Joffe to the researchers informing them
    that “the task is indeed broad” and “the VIPs would be happy” if they could find anything linking Trump to Russia. Gov’t Mot. in Lim. at 22. The Court finds that this email is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted
    and therefore may be admitted only as a non-hearsay co-conspirator statement
    or under a hearsay exception. The email reflects when and why Mr. Joffe
    tasked the researchers with the data collection project—i.e., that the
    “VIPs” were “looking for a true story that could be used as the basis for closer examination.” Id. The government argues this statement “tend[s] to
    prove the existence of the attorney-client relationship about which [Mr. Sussmann] lied.” Id. at 23. However, this statement only suggests a
    connection between Mr. Joffe, the Clinton Campaign, and Fusion if his
    statement is true. Mr. Joffe’s relationship is demonstrated by the fact that the “VIPs” were looking for such a story and “would be happy” if one
    emerged. If that were not the case, and Mr. Joffe was instead insinuating
    that he had a closer relationship to the “VIPs” than he really did, then
    this email would not be evidence of Mr. Joffe’s relationship with anyone.
    This email could therefore only be admissible as a co-conspirator statement, which the Court addresses below, or under an exception the government has
    not yet raised. The second email is from Mr. Joffe to the researchers soliciting their views on the white paper he had been drafting with Mr. Sussmann. Id. at 25. In this email, Mr. Joffe asks the researchers how they thought a “security expert”—rather than an expert on DNS data—would view the white paper. Indictment ¶ 24(e). This email is not hearsay because nothing
    in the email is offered for the truth of the matter asserted—the email is a combination of a task (“please read”) and a question (“Is this plausible as
    an explanation?”). Those statements are not assertions and thus cannot be hearsay. See Mitchell v. DCX, Inc., (D.D.C. 2003) (“directives,” taskings, commands, or other “verbal acts” are generally not hearsay because they do
    not constitute assertions); United States v. Oguns, (2d Cir. 1990) (“An
    inquiry is not an ‘assertion,’ and accordingly is not and cannot be a
    hearsay statement.” (citing Inc. Publ’g Corp. v. Manhattan Magazine, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1985))). The email is thus admissible with proper foundation. The third email is from Mr. Joffe to a colleague after the November 2016
    election expressing that he was offered a top cybersecurity job “by the Democrats when it looked like they’d win.” Indictment ¶ 15. This email is inadmissible hearsay, as it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted
    and does not fit into any hearsay exception. The email would evince Mr.
    Joffe’s affinity for the campaign as well as his motive to disseminate the allegations, but only if he had in fact been offered a “top cybersecurity
    job” by the Clinton Campaign.

    Note 2.
    This email would also not fit within the definition of a co-conspirator statement, even if one had been proven. It makes no reference to the Alfa
    Bank allegations, does nothing to further the purported goal of
    disseminating those allegations, and post-dates the joint venture.

    C.

    Co-Conspirator Statements The government argues in the alternative that all
    the above emails, and other similar ones, may be admitted as co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. regardless of whether they are offered for
    their truth. To recap, the Federal Rules provide that “a statement . . . is
    not hearsay” if “the statement is offered against a party and . . . was made
    by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”
    Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); see Bourjaily. The joint venture need not be criminal in nature. Brockenborrugh.

    Before admitting a statement under this provision, the Court must determine
    the existence of a joint venture by a preponderance of the evidence. This finding must be based, “at least partially, on some independent evidence of the conspiracy” beyond the hearsay statement. United States v. Apodaca,
    (D.D.C. 2017). The Court must also find that the defendant and the declarant “participated in a single conspiracy and that the statement was made during
    and in furtherance of that conspiracy.” White. “Thus, the ultimate admissibility determination must rest both on finding that the challenged co-conspirator statement is in furtherance of the conspiracy and, at least partially, on some independent evidence of the conspiracy.” Apodaca. The government submits that Mr. Joffe, Mr. Sussmann, and the Clinton Campaign
    (or its agents) were “acting in concert toward a common goal”—i.e.,
    “assembling and disseminating the [Alfa Bank] allegations and other
    derogatory information about Trump to the media and the U.S. government.”
    Gov’t Mot. in Lim. at 14. It further argues the Georgia Tech researchers, employees of various internet companies, and Fusion GPS were part of this
    joint venture. Id. at 19, 32. The Court will exercise its discretion not to engage in the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required
    to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it, in order to admit these emails under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). While the Rule permits introduction of co-conspirator statements on the basis advanced by the
    Special Counsel, there are a number of considerations that counsel against doing so here. For starters, Mr. Sussmann is not charged with a conspiracy. Granted, the rule does permit the introduction of co-conspirator “even if
    the defendant is not formally charged with any conspiracy in the
    indictment.” Safavian, (citing United States v. Russo, (2d Cir. 2002)). But when the relevant conspiracy is uncharged, extensive presentation of
    evidence about that conspiracy is likely to confuse the jury and distract
    from the issues at hand. See id. (“Statements from an uncharged conspiracy
    may be excluded because they are remote or unrelated to the charges in the indictment, or if their admission would confuse or mislead the jury”). The value of engaging in a separate conspiracy determination is also lessened by the fact that the Special Counsel seeks to introduce these co-conspirator statements “not with respect to the specific crime[] for which Mr.
    [Sussmann] has been indicted,” but with respect to an uncharged and lawful joint venture. Safavian. That is, the emails are generally being offered not
    as direct evidence that Mr. Sussmann lied to the FBI, but for the ancillary reason that, if the data did originate in this “politically-laden way,” and
    Mr. Sussmann’s clients were involved, Mr. Sussmann would have had a motive
    to conceal such a project from the FBI. Gov’t Reply Re: Mots. in Lim. at 4,
    ECF No. 94. Moreover, while the Special Counsel has proffered some evidence
    of a collective effort to disseminate the purported link between Trump and
    Alfa Bank to the press and others, the contours of this venture and its participants are not entirely obvious. The Special Counsel is correct that co-conspirators need not know “all the details of the plan or even possess
    the same motives.” Id. at 6. But, co-conspirators must have at least “shared
    a common goal.” Def.’s Opp’n at 19, ECF No. 68 (citing Brockenborrugh. The Court is particularly skeptical that the researchers—who were not employed
    by Mr. Joffe, Fusion GPS, or the Clinton Campaign, and most of whom never communicated with Mr. Sussmann—shared in this common goal. While it appears undisputed that Mr. Joffe tasked the researchers with compiling the data,
    the extent to which they knew the audience or purpose of the project remains unclear. E.g., Gov’t Mot. in Lim. at 26 (researcher did not know the
    audience for the white paper). Indeed, the Special Counsel himself at times omits the researchers from the alleged joint venture. See id. at 19 (the evidence establishes “that the defendant and Tech Executive-1 worked in
    concert with each other and with agents of the Clinton Campaign to research
    and disseminate the [Alfa Bank] allegations”) (emphasis added).
    Additionally, some evidence suggests that Fusion GPS employees had no connection to the gathering or compilation of the Alfa Bank data, even if
    they may have communicated with the press about it later. See Ex. A to Gov’t Reply Re: Mot. to Compel at 53, ECF No. 99 (Fusion email stating “the DNS stuff? not us at all”). Where exactly Mr. Sussmann fits into the enterprise
    is similarly murky at this stage. Given these present ambiguities, deciding whether a particular statement falls within this rule would require a
    finding during trial that this broader uncharged conspiracy existed, and
    that both Mr. Sussmann and the author of any particular email were members
    of it. It would then require an individualized determination of whether “the specific statements contained within the proffered e-mails were made in furtherance of that conspiracy.” Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d at 48. Because no conspiracy is charged in the indictment, this undertaking would essentially amount to a second trial on a non-crime conducted largely for the purpose of admitting “other acts” evidence of Mr. Sussmann’s motive rather than his commission of the singular and narrow crime with which he has been charged. This sort of particularized evidentiary analysis is especially unwarranted given that the Court has already ruled on the admissibility of many of the emails on other grounds. Whatever few emails remain that the Court has not
    yet seen are likely to be either irrelevant or redundant of other admissible evidence.

    To the latter point, the government has indicated that it intends to call
    one or both of the Georgia Tech researchers at trial. Either of them could testify to their role in assembling the data, how they came to be tasked
    with the project, and whether they believed the research was done for the Clinton Campaign or some other purpose. Accordingly, the Court will
    “exercise[] its discretion” not “to undertake this lengthy journey” for the sake of a few “e-mails that contain either redundant information or
    information that could be testified to” by other witnesses. Safavian. To sum
    up through this point, the government may attempt to connect the dots
    between the various participants in the collection and use of the Alfa Bank data. Those connections provide context to the lone charge and are
    generally relevant either as intrinsic evidence of the veracity of Mr. Sussmann’s alleged statement to Mr. Baker, or as Rule 404(b) “other acts” evidence concerning his purported motive to conceal his client relationships from the FBI. But as it stands now, the government must steer clear of
    evidence regarding the accuracy of the data, which the defense does not plan
    to place at issue, and whether Mr. Joffe’s role in the collection effort was somehow “objectionable” or illegal. Nor will the Court conduct a time- consuming and largely unnecessary mini-trial to determine the existence and scope of an uncharged conspiracy to develop and disseminate the Alfa Bank
    data. The Court is confident the government can effectively pursue its case without the marginal information such an inquiry might yield about Mr. Sussmann’s motives and client relationships.

    Note 3.
    Of course, if the Special Counsel seeks to admit other, relevant emails for
    a non-hearsay purpose, the Court will consider that during trial. The Court may also be better equipped to address any objections under Rule 403 at that time. Old Chief v. United States, (1997) (“The probative worth of any particular bit of evidence is obviously affected by the scarcity or
    abundance of other evidence on the same point.” (quoting 22 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure.

    D.


    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Mon May 9 05:23:24 2022
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:22:52 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Here, Bill pretends he read the filing.

    John Doe is lying as usual. The filing is remarkably long, and totally out of place here , so I just marked it as "spam" which it most certainly is.

    Nobody in their right mind would waste their time reading it. John Doe claims that it is set up for text-to-speech conversion, which would even more insane for anybody whose can reading faster than they they can take in speech (which is most people).

    I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it.

    It does look as if the FBI set up the prosecution as a sop to Donald Trump, and are now trying to get the judge to kick it out, now that there's no need to keep Trump placated, but that merely based on a superficial impression of what's going on.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Tue May 10 23:10:10 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 5:23:28 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:22:52 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Here, Bill pretends he read the filing.

    John Doe is lying as usual. The filing is remarkably long, and totally out of place here , so I just marked it as "spam" which it most certainly is.

    Nobody in their right mind would waste their time reading it. John Doe claims that it is set up for text-to-speech conversion, which would even more insane for anybody whose can reading faster than they they can take in speech (which is most people).

    I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it.

    It does look as if the FBI set up the prosecution as a sop to Donald Trump, and are now trying to get the judge to kick it out, now that there's no need to keep Trump placated, but that merely based on a superficial impression of what's going on.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, the filing is far more relevant than the shit that you post.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed May 11 05:41:31 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:10:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 5:23:28 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:22:52 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Here, Bill pretends he read the filing.

    John Doe is lying as usual. The filing is remarkably long, and totally out of place here , so I just marked it as "spam" which it most certainly is.

    Nobody in their right mind would waste their time reading it. John Doe claims that it is set up for text-to-speech conversion, which would even more insane for anybody whose can reading faster than they they can take in speech (which is most people).

    I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it.

    It does look as if the FBI set up the prosecution as a sop to Donald Trump, and are now trying to get the judge to kick it out, now that there's no need to keep Trump placated, but that merely based on a superficial impression of what's going on.

    Hey Sloman, the filing is far more relevant than the shit that you post.

    Flyguy's opinions are the demented rambling of an opinionated twit in the last stages of senile dementia. They aren't relevant to anything at all, but he's much too far gone to realise this.
    My posts are at least short. John Doe's go on for pages, and the FBI prosecution hasn't got anything to do with electronics design, which does make them spectacularly irrelevant here.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed May 11 21:34:36 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:41:35 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:10:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 5:23:28 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:22:52 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Here, Bill pretends he read the filing.

    John Doe is lying as usual. The filing is remarkably long, and totally out of place here , so I just marked it as "spam" which it most certainly is.

    Nobody in their right mind would waste their time reading it. John Doe claims that it is set up for text-to-speech conversion, which would even more insane for anybody whose can reading faster than they they can take in speech (which is most people)
    .

    I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it.

    It does look as if the FBI set up the prosecution as a sop to Donald Trump, and are now trying to get the judge to kick it out, now that there's no need to keep Trump placated, but that merely based on a superficial impression of what's going on.

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, the filing is far more relevant than the shit that you post.

    Flyguy's opinions are the demented rambling of an opinionated twit in the last stages of senile dementia. They aren't relevant to anything at all, but he's much too far gone to realise this.
    My posts are at least short. John Doe's go on for pages, and the FBI prosecution hasn't got anything to do with electronics design, which does make them spectacularly irrelevant here.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    No SNIPPERMAN, your pedantic ramblings are BORING and REPETITIVE, as well as being uninformative and outright lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed May 11 23:00:11 2022
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:34:41 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:41:35 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:10:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 5:23:28 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:22:52 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Here, Bill pretends he read the filing.

    John Doe is lying as usual. The filing is remarkably long, and totally out of place here , so I just marked it as "spam" which it most certainly is.

    Nobody in their right mind would waste their time reading it. John Doe claims that it is set up for text-to-speech conversion, which would even more insane for anybody whose can reading faster than they they can take in speech (which is most
    people).

    I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it.

    It does look as if the FBI set up the prosecution as a sop to Donald Trump, and are now trying to get the judge to kick it out, now that there's no need to keep Trump placated, but that merely based on a superficial impression of what's going on.

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, the filing is far more relevant than the shit that you post.

    Flyguy's opinions are the demented rambling of an opinionated twit in the last stages of senile dementia. They aren't relevant to anything at all, but he's much too far gone to realise this.

    My posts are at least short. John Doe's go on for pages, and the FBI prosecution hasn't got anything to do with electronics design, which does make them spectacularly irrelevant here.


    No Sloman, your pedantic ramblings are BORING and REPETITIVE, as well as being uninformative and outright lies.

    By which Flyguy means that he can't understand any of them, so they all look the same to him. He'd like to think that they were outright lies, but he has yet to pick up any individual statement and tell why thinks that it is wrong. The nonsense he does
    post does suggest that if he did, his arguments wouldn't be persuasive.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 12 07:29:48 2022
    Sticking its nose into America's problems gets this Australian troll's panties wet.

    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo being Bozo)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo is a textbook cannibal leftist)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Thu May 12 01:40:22 2022
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:29:56 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Sticking its nose into America's problems gets this Australian excited.

    John Doe can't be bothered to mention which of America's problems he imagines I find exciting.

    The John Durham prosecution - which he seems to think is worth paying attention to - isn't any kind of problem, except perhaps for the
    FBI who seem to have taken it on as sop to Trump, and haven't yet found a tidy way of giving up on it now that Trump isn't in a position where he is worth pacifying.

    It's a fairly comical subject, and John Doe's deluded enthusiasm for taking it seriously is even funnier. I do like making jokes at John Doe's expense - since he's here we do have do something useful with him - but it's not something to get excited
    about.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Fri May 13 21:51:43 2022
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:00:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:34:41 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:41:35 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:10:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 5:23:28 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:22:52 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Here, Bill pretends he read the filing.

    John Doe is lying as usual. The filing is remarkably long, and totally out of place here , so I just marked it as "spam" which it most certainly is.

    Nobody in their right mind would waste their time reading it. John Doe claims that it is set up for text-to-speech conversion, which would even more insane for anybody whose can reading faster than they they can take in speech (which is most
    people).

    I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it.

    It does look as if the FBI set up the prosecution as a sop to Donald Trump, and are now trying to get the judge to kick it out, now that there's no need to keep Trump placated, but that merely based on a superficial impression of what's going
    on.

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, the filing is far more relevant than the shit that you post.

    Flyguy's opinions are the demented rambling of an opinionated twit in the last stages of senile dementia. They aren't relevant to anything at all, but he's much too far gone to realise this.

    My posts are at least short. John Doe's go on for pages, and the FBI prosecution hasn't got anything to do with electronics design, which does make them spectacularly irrelevant here.


    No Sloman, your pedantic ramblings are BORING and REPETITIVE, as well as being uninformative and outright lies.

    By which Flyguy means that he can't understand any of them, so they all look the same to him. He'd like to think that they were outright lies, but he has yet to pick up any individual statement and tell why thinks that it is wrong. The nonsense he does
    post does suggest that if he did, his arguments wouldn't be persuasive.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, here are your OWN WORDS:

    "I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it."

    I understand completely that this is the mind of a blowhard that does much more talking than listening, if any.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Fri May 13 21:55:31 2022
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:40:26 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:29:56 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Sticking its nose into America's problems gets this Australian excited.

    John Doe can't be bothered to mention which of America's problems he imagines I find exciting.

    The John Durham prosecution - which he seems to think is worth paying attention to - isn't any kind of problem, except perhaps for the
    FBI who seem to have taken it on as sop to Trump, and haven't yet found a tidy way of giving up on it now that Trump isn't in a position where he is worth pacifying.

    It's a fairly comical subject, and John Doe's deluded enthusiasm for taking it seriously is even funnier. I do like making jokes at John Doe's expense - since he's here we do have do something useful with him - but it's not something to get excited
    about.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydne

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, tell me that a felony trial for Shrillary's lawyer isn't "worth paying attention to." While you're at it tell us that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is Russian disinformation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri May 13 22:54:00 2022
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:55:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:40:26 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:29:56 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Sticking its nose into America's problems gets this Australian excited.

    John Doe can't be bothered to mention which of America's problems he imagines I find exciting.

    The John Durham prosecution - which he seems to think is worth paying attention to - isn't any kind of problem, except perhaps for the
    FBI who seem to have taken it on as sop to Trump, and haven't yet found a tidy way of giving up on it now that Trump isn't in a position where he is worth pacifying.

    It's a fairly comical subject, and John Doe's deluded enthusiasm for taking it seriously is even funnier. I do like making jokes at John Doe's expense - since he's here we do have do something useful with him - but it's not something to get excited
    about.

    Hey Sloman, tell me that a felony trial for Shrillary's lawyer isn't "worth paying attention to."

    It might be worth paying attention to if it lead to a prosecution. Sussmann isn't - strictly speaking one of Hillary Clintons's lawyers. He did work for the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, which isn't quite the same thing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sussmann

    His claim is that what he'd found out when he had been retained by them was worrying enough that he felt - as a private person - that he ought to draw it to the attention of the FBI . Who was paying him when he found it out shouldn't be material.

    While you're at it tell us that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is Russian disinformation.

    More likely Trump-generated misinformation. The laptop was produced by the Trump campaign team after they'd had every opportunity to salt it with all the fake evidence they might feel like planting on the device. As a smoking gun, it smells more like a
    stinking fake.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri May 13 22:40:13 2022
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:51:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:00:17 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:34:41 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 5:41:35 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 4:10:14 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 5:23:28 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:22:52 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Here, Bill pretends he read the filing.

    John Doe is lying as usual. The filing is remarkably long, and totally out of place here , so I just marked it as "spam" which it most certainly is.

    Nobody in their right mind would waste their time reading it. John Doe claims that it is set up for text-to-speech conversion, which would even more insane for anybody whose can reading faster than they they can take in speech (which is most
    people).

    I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it.

    It does look as if the FBI set up the prosecution as a sop to Donald Trump, and are now trying to get the judge to kick it out, now that there's no need to keep Trump placated, but that merely based on a superficial impression of what's going
    on.

    Hey Sloman the filing is far more relevant than the shit that you post.

    Flyguy's opinions are the demented rambling of an opinionated twit in the last stages of senile dementia. They aren't relevant to anything at all, but he's much too far gone to realise this.

    My posts are at least short. John Doe's go on for pages, and the FBI prosecution hasn't got anything to do with electronics design, which does make them spectacularly irrelevant here.

    No Sloman, your pedantic ramblings are BORING and REPETITIVE, as well as being uninformative and outright lies.

    By which Flyguy means that he can't understand any of them, so they all look the same to him. He'd like to think that they were outright lies, but he has yet to pick up any individual statement and tell why thinks that it is wrong. The nonsense he
    does post does suggest that if he did, his arguments wouldn't be persuasive.

    Hey Sloman, here are your OWN WORDS:
    "I certainly haven't read it, and haven't made any claim to have read it."

    I understand completely that this is the mind of a blowhard that does much more talking than listening, if any.

    Flyguy ignores the fact that John Doe has been puffing the John Durham prosecution for months now, and I've already read far more than enough it to be well aware how worthless it is. Flyguy is blowhard who doesn't know what hie is talking about, and all
    that he "understands" is that he always understands everything perfectly, which doesn't happen to be entirely correct, no matter how well it plays to his self-esteem.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat May 14 01:52:20 2022
    On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:32:40 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 9:57:48 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 4:20:50 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 4:33:20 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 1:59:32 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:28:02 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 1:54:01 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 1:24:38 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 4:27:47 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 9:50:05 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:19:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:14:58 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:11:11 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:54:28 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 8:35:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 12:31:54 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

    <snip>

    You have made the EXACT same observation about me, so what is good for the goose is good for the GANDER!

    I'm sure that you imagine that this is true. Sadly for your reputation, it isn't remotely correct.

    Just another mediocre impersonation of someone else, Sloman - who the hell ARE YOU, anyhow?

    If you knew enough about me to be able to insist that I'm doing a mediocre impersonation of myself, you would be able to answer your own question. The short answer is - somebody smarter than you are - but that must cover about 99.5% of the
    population.

    The longer answer is that your senile dementia leaves you feeling confused all the time, and you'd feel less confused if you stopped wasting time posting nonsense questions.

    Smarter than me??? Are you SERIOUS, Sloman???? Get REAL: you want to NUKE and FIREBOMB your own country!!!!!

    You are dumb enough to misunderstand stuff that I've posted as implying that. You do have talent for moronic misapprehension, but construing that as making you "smart" is just one more moronic misapprehension.

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, YOU are the one that wants to NUKE and FIREBOMB your own country, not ME!

    Flyguy has claimed that I post lies, but his claim that I want to firebomb my own country does happen to be a lie, though he's much too stupid to realise it.

    The basis of his claim was my suggestion that if the batteries in an electric-powered aircraft started to overheat, it would make sense to dump them before they caught on fire. The process of thermal runaway in a bank of cells does take a while - the
    batteries have got to be self-discharging at rate that actually makes the battery pack progressively warmer, and it takes while for the heat generated to get the battery hot enough for the cells to burst and expose the electrolyte to air where it can
    catch on fire.

    My assumption was that the core battery temperature would be being monitored, and if it got high enough to be worrying, the control system would stop drawing current from the batteries. If the core temperature didn't drop, you'd know that battery pack
    had got into thermal runaway, and your best choice would be to dump it.

    Ideally, you'd let the battery of cells break apart in the process, to let the individual cells cool off more easily and thus short-circuiting the thermal runaway.

    In any case you'd dump the battery before any cell had got hot enough to burst or catch on fire, and ideally early enough that they never got that hot.

    Flyguy lacks the attention span to process this, so he simplified it to "dumping a burning battery" which gave him a neat, if entirely invented, line of abuse.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 14 13:12:53 2022
    FWIW...

    You might notice lots of news stories, even some from the cannibal left,
    about the upcoming trial since it starts soon (maybe next week).

    Lots of recent stories, using this on Google...

    allintext:Durham Sussmann

    Limit results to a few days or so.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From corvid@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 14 07:53:04 2022
    Losing the entire context, John Doe comes up with:
    FWIW...

    You might notice lots of news stories, even some from the cannibal
    left, about the upcoming trial since it starts soon (maybe next
    week).

    Lots of recent stories, using this on Google...

    allintext:Durham Sussmann

    Limit results to a few days or so.

    I walked out of Costco, headed back to my car, and found $20 in the
    parking lot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Mon May 16 21:54:58 2022
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:54:07 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:55:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:40:26 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:29:56 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Sticking its nose into America's problems gets this Australian excited.

    John Doe can't be bothered to mention which of America's problems he imagines I find exciting.

    The John Durham prosecution - which he seems to think is worth paying attention to - isn't any kind of problem, except perhaps for the
    FBI who seem to have taken it on as sop to Trump, and haven't yet found a tidy way of giving up on it now that Trump isn't in a position where he is worth pacifying.

    It's a fairly comical subject, and John Doe's deluded enthusiasm for taking it seriously is even funnier. I do like making jokes at John Doe's expense - since he's here we do have do something useful with him - but it's not something to get excited
    about.

    Hey Sloman, tell me that a felony trial for Shrillary's lawyer isn't "worth paying attention to."

    It might be worth paying attention to if it lead to a prosecution. Sussmann isn't - strictly speaking one of Hillary Clintons's lawyers. He did work for the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, which isn't quite the same thing.

    LOL! That is EXACTLY why they are prosecuting Sussman, SNIPPERMAN! He even BILLED Shrillary for his time spent on lying to the Feds, which is part of their evidence. Prosecutors generally don't indict people that they think they can't get a conviction on.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sussmann

    His claim is that what he'd found out when he had been retained by them was worrying enough that he felt - as a private person - that he ought to draw it to the attention of the FBI . Who was paying him when he found it out shouldn't be material.
    While you're at it tell us that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is Russian disinformation.
    More likely Trump-generated misinformation. The laptop was produced by the Trump campaign team after they'd had every opportunity to salt it with all the fake evidence they might feel like planting on the device. As a smoking gun, it smells more like a
    stinking fake.

    SNIPPERMAN. this is ANOTHER one of your BLATANT LIES. Even the NY Times AND The WaPo have admitted that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is genuine, and it contains a wealth of evidence against both Hunter BooBoo and Lyin' Biden.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/


    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu May 19 04:25:54 2022
    On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 2:55:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:54:07 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:55:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:40:26 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:29:56 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

    <snip>

    While you're at it tell us that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is Russian disinformation.

    More likely Trump-generated misinformation. The laptop was produced by the Trump campaign pteam after they'd had every opportunity to salt it with all the fake evidence they might feel like planting on the device. As a smoking gun, it smells more
    like a stinking fake.

    Sloman this is ANOTHER one of your BLATANT LIES. Even the NY Times AND The WaPo have admitted that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is genuine, and it contains a wealth of evidence against both Hunter BooBoo and Lyin' Biden.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

    The laptop presumably belonged to Hunter Biden at some point. The says nothing about when the "wealth of evidence" got written on it, and anybody with more brains than Flyguy would be able to work out that the Trump campaign team would have been
    delighted to add any "evidence" they liked before they showed it off to the public.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Fri May 20 19:02:33 2022
    On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:25:59 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 2:55:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:54:07 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:55:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:40:26 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:29:56 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    <snip>
    While you're at it tell us that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is Russian disinformation.

    More likely Trump-generated misinformation. The laptop was produced by the Trump campaign pteam after they'd had every opportunity to salt it with all the fake evidence they might feel like planting on the device. As a smoking gun, it smells more
    like a stinking fake.

    SNIPPERMAN this is ANOTHER one of your BLATANT LIES. Even the NY Times AND The WaPo have admitted that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is genuine, and it contains a wealth of evidence against both Hunter BooBoo and Lyin' Biden.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

    The laptop presumably belonged to Hunter Biden at some point. The says nothing about when the "wealth of evidence" got written on it, and anybody with more brains than Flyguy would be able to work out that the Trump campaign team would have been
    delighted to add any "evidence" they liked before they showed it off to the public.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Oh, now the laptop is REAL - apparently SNIPPERMAN had an epiphany. No, there is no incriminating evidence on it, like Papa Joe's involvement in illegal influence peddling involving both Ukranians and Chinese.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri May 20 23:24:31 2022
    On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 12:02:38 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:25:59 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 2:55:03 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:54:07 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:55:34 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 1:40:26 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 5:29:56 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    <snip>
    While you're at it tell us that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is Russian disinformation.

    More likely Trump-generated misinformation. The laptop was produced by the Trump campaign pteam after they'd had every opportunity to salt it with all the fake evidence they might feel like planting on the device. As a smoking gun, it smells more
    like a stinking fake.

    SNIPPERMAN this is ANOTHER one of your BLATANT LIES. Even the NY Times AND The WaPo have admitted that Hunter BooBoo's laptop is genuine, and it contains a wealth of evidence against both Hunter BooBoo and Lyin' Biden.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

    The laptop presumably belonged to Hunter Biden at some point. The says nothing about when the "wealth of evidence" got written on it, and anybody with more brains than Flyguy would be able to work out that the Trump campaign team would have been
    delighted to add any "evidence" they liked before they showed it off to the public.

    Oh, now the laptop is REAL - apparently Sloman had an epiphany. No, there is no incriminating evidence on it, like Papa Joe's involvement in illegal influence peddling involving both Ukranians and Chinese.

    Did I ever say that the laptop was imaginary? The Trump election team wouldn't have bother to fill it's hard drive with invented evidence if they hadn't been able to link the hardware back to Hunter Biden.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)