Well, that definitely beats any evidence Durham has collected...

Libtards actually believe that Vanity Fair has the ultimate say in legal / political matters such as this!

imgflip.com/i/65e4mf#com17345858

Can you articulate the exact evidence that Durham has collected?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21210605-us-v-sussman-durham-probe-35

I can tell you haven't read that.

Because the only charge is that Sussman lied to the FBI and the CIA on who he represented. He claimed in the interview that he was not representing a client. Durham insists that he was representing the Clinton Campaign.

Then it goes on about some vague things about collecting DNS data.

Then it gets vague about the timeline. Because Jaffe (tech exec 1) was working for the federal government from 2014 to 2017. His job (as he was contracted for) was to collect public DNS data to look for malware in order to detected and prevent another hack as what happened to the RNC and the DNC.

So, he was literally doing his job collecting public DNS data that does not contain any private information. He wasn't spying.

If you'd actually read the report, you'd know that. But instead you're going to believe what the hacks on Fox are telling you what's in it.

RAther than looking for yourself.

I made no claims other than the special investigator having more evidence than vanity fair.

Believe who you want, it is ultimately irrelevant.

I asked if you could articulate that evidence. As in, explain it. You didn't.

You just reposted Durham's report. Which, at its worst, is deceitful and at best vague and omits information.

Because, despite how you feel about it, there is no evidence of spying. None.

I am not reading it to you like a bedtime story. You can read it your damned self.

You can, as I said before, believe what you want.

I have read it. And I've read what legal analysts and experts say about it.

and there's no evidence of spying in it at all. the charge is simple: Sussman lied to the FBI and the CIA about whether he was representing the Clinton Campain in 2017 when he was interviewed about the information he presented to them.

Notice the lack of spying or illegal wiretapping charges.

Durham even says at the end of the report that Tech Exec 1 (and Tech Firm 1) were working within the bounds of their job, and were collecting publically available information.

The lawyers for Sussman have asked a judge to redact that part of is report as it's prejudicial and not relevant to the charges that he's leveled against Sussman.

Don't be surprised if that happens.

But you stick with your feelings rather than facts.

Sussman lied to the FBI - and that's what the first indictment is. It details other things that occurred, and I'm sure it wouldn't be in the report unless there is evidence to back it up. Apparently there are plenty of financial records to sift through, and that's now connections are being made.

I don't know what you think you're gaining by saying that I'm wrong about things I didn't say. It makes you look silly. About the only thing I have said that comes close to prediction is that we probably won't see anything come of this until next January at the earliest.

The only, not the first, the only indictment is that Sussman lied to the FBI and Intel Org 2 (the CIA) about whether or not he was representing the Clinton Campaign when turning over the evidence.

Sussman said that he was not. Durham insists that he was.

But my point is this: you are unable to articulate the "evidence" of spying by Hillary or anyone she paid because there is none.

That's why I asked for specific details. Details you are unable to provide. Because you have been lied to. This report is full of nonsense and fluff.

Now you're moving the goalposts - which does not surprise me the tiniest bit.

Your original request was that I articulate what evidence he had - which, of course, I cannot - because the only information available is the court filing, not the actual evidence. I would imagine that the evidence he has on Sussman is financial - that he got paid by the Hillary campaign prior to making his statements to the FBI, which would have made his statement to the FBI false....but that's just a guess.

Typical disingenuous wordplay, which you aren't very good at.

Sooooooo, would this be a case where your dodging is done by claiming limits on what you are pretending is a little too heavy on the "nuance" even though it isn't?

EVEN DURHAM is saying that no one spied on Trump. His exact quote is: "If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government's Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government's inclusion of this information,"

Then, as far as you know, that vanity fair does prove she's innocent.

I highly recommend that you read Durham's report. then go read up on what legal experts say about it.

What you'll find is that it's a bunch of nonsense. Durham is charging Sussman with lying about representing the Clinton campaign when he turned over evidence of what might be illegal activity to the cops.

Durham says Sussman did it because Clinton told him to.
Sussman says he did it because it was illegal activity and not at the behest or interest of any client.

That's a hard charge to make stick if you don't have some solid evidence like emails or voice recordings involving instructions to Sussman to turn it over to the FBI & CIA.

Ahh, that "nuance" again?

you should look up the word....expand your horizons.