Press "Enter" to skip to content

Clinton Duped ‘Em All! The Fraud Extends to Durham in Flimsy but Clear Cover-up and Clean-up Strategy: Days 1 and 2

19 May 22

C is for cover-up. C is for clean-up. C is for Clinton. Clinton duped ’em all! That’s the flimsy and fraudulent but now clear strategy from the Durham Special Counsel prosecution of Michael Sussmann in framing the exit for this dog and pony show trial with a predetermined and scripted ending. The cogent and pragmatic advice to those expecting traction from Durham to fundamentally shift the landscape is to temper the expectations and significantly so. As a former fraud investigator, the ingrained practice is to only report findings that can be evidenced to withstand evidentiary thresholds because the last place one would care to find oneself is on the witness stand unable to explain the conclusions made and how they were achieved. That practice precludes positing notions of hope and we never irresponsibly proffer them here at Moonshine. Some folks don’t like that and that’s a part of the problems facing this country.

Durham has threaded through much of our work and two primary articles preceded this one. As far back as 01 Dec 20, I offered much caution in the approach to Durham respective to Barr, “I would urge caution here and for these admittedly pessimistic but factually grounded reasons. For one, investigations are opened for one of two purposes: a) to reveal crimes and prosecute crimes -or- b) to conceal crimes and then seal away evidence of those crimes. For another and with the ultimate authority residing in Barr (Durham), he/they will have the latitude to serve the Republic and undo a long timeline of treason and criminality resulting in a second Trump term -or- adhering to institutional preservation and complying with the Deep State by sealing away the evidence of wrongdoing against Trump.”

In the second article below”, I revisited the proper lens for understanding Durham and the reality for expectations from the Special Counsel saying that there is, a “keystone” for understanding Special Counsel John Durham and it is none other than is William Barr. With an accurate account in hand of Barr’s record and positioning at specific times during his career as a two-time Attorney General and in private practice; especially his time at Kirkland & Ellis, the evidence to temper expectations about John Durham is broad, deep and undeniably convincing assuming personal bias can be set aside and ones lens is calibrated with objectivity.”

If unfamiliar with former two-time Attorney General William Barr and specifically relative to his positioning at Kirkland & Ellis between his two stints, the above article is imperative to read and it includes links to nearly 60 other Moonshine articles evidencing it all. The short of it is as easy as these two questions from the article, “No one really believes a 2-time attorney general in William Barr would appoint a special counsel that would eventually lead to his own undoing, do they? One initially appointed by the head of the snake, George H.W. Bush?”

A second Durham consideration is extracted from the Conservative Treehouse article below that aids in further delineating our evidenced and disappointing conclusions, “This outcome was always visible when we accept the totality of the Robert Mueller probe as an overlay into this entire scenario.  Put into a question I have asked for two years:”

How could John Durham hold DOJ and FBI officials accountable for participating in the Trump-Russia fraud, when those same DOJ and FBI officials were part of the Robert Mueller cover-up operation? 

Those are basic, fundamental and extremely sharp brass tacks that make for easy consumption and easier comprehension to properly frame expectations for Durham. Institutional preservation is a very real beast that is nearly impossible to slay or so it would seem.

Barr’s background and the common sense approach that he would never appoint a Special Counsel empowered to undo himself as compounded by the Mueller Special Counsel that enmeshes and entangles many of the same FBI and DOJ officials as found in the Sussmann case presents a full stop. It keeps Durham from getting out of the starting blocks; much less running the race; much less winning it; much less winning it for the American people. Expectations should be tempered; perhaps even dismissed altogether.

Sundance hammers more nails into the coffin further evidencing our longstanding positions on Durham [emphasis added],

As noted by Charlie Savage, prosecutor Deborah Shaw, a member of the Durham team, delivered the opening remarks to frame the government position in the case.

The telling remarks came early: “Shaw addresses “the elephant in the room” – tells jury their feelings about Russia, Trump, Clinton can’t play a role in the case. This is about “our FBI” which should not be used as a tool by anyone, Republicans or Democrats.”  In essence, prosecutor Shaw is telling the jury the FBI were duped into the Trump-Russia conspiracy investigation by outsiders connected to the Clinton campaign.

That’s a critical baseline from the government we must understand and accept.  That baseline now indicates that none of the DOJ and FBI operatives involved in the fraudulent scheme will be held accountable by the Durham team.  “Our FBI should not be used as a tool by anyone,” yet they were, so sayeth the United States Government.

Sundance at Conservative Treehouse

There you have it – “Clinton duped ’em all!” That’s what is forthcoming from Durham and it precludes the staking of any prominent heads as long contended. Sussmann is on trial for the process crime of a single count of lying to the FBI and process crimes are the historical mechanisms of cover-up and clean-up. Durham was doomed from the start and never intended to get out of the blocks.

For anyone considering that any future prosecution of Hillary Clinton and her campaign is somehow a victory, I urge caution and pragmatism there, too. From the second article above, “Perhaps Durham will bend back on Clinton but she’s now irrelevant and disposable and so any such development would become nothing more than fat to chew-on for the partisans assuming that eventually happens. Moreover, it would be irrelevant given that Clinton has never been elected for anything other than Senator; she’s only been a failed candidate beyond her appointment as Secretary of State.”

A Clinton prosecution would amount to no more than a constructed effort to compartmentalize the extreme criminal culpability of a wide swath of individuals and entities into an expendable container while protecting the DOJ and FBI officials caught-up in the Durham/Mueller overlay outlined above.

For day two of the Sussmann trial, Sundance remarks on the defense’s strategy respective to Rodney Joffe and the Trump/Alfa Bank allegations,

In the cross examination of the first set of prosecution witnesses the defense lawyers keep contending that Sussmann did not lie about the fraudulently created origin of the Alfa-Bank material and there was no reason for him not to tell the FBI he was a courier for the Clinton campaign.  The defense is essentially that Sussmann and the FBI knew he was working for the Clinton campaign when he delivered the fraudulent material.  Sussmann wasn’t trying to hide anything, ergo he didn’t lie.

Sussmann’s defensive point is essentially true.  The DOJ, FBI and everyone associated with the information knew they were receiving opposition research from the Clinton campaign.  However, the FBI had to pretend they didn’t know in order to use it to start an investigation.

Margot Cleveland notes at the time in 2016 when these events took place, Rodney Joffe was actually a confidential informant for the FBI.

At the same time Joffe was a CI, he was creating false evidence for the Clinton campaign to bolster their politically motivated Trump-Russia collusion nonsense; the “October Surprise.”

Joffe was dropped as a confidential informant (CI) in 2021 “for cause,” meaning he did something that eventually violated the FBI rules for CI’s to be operating.  It’s possible the John Durham investigation had something to do with that decision.

The question for the 2016 events is why Joffe didn’t just give the material to the FBI instead of giving it to Sussmann to give to the FBI?

The answer is really quite simple.  The priority of the “October Surprise” was to get the media to write the Trump-Russia collusion stories before the election, hoping the cloud of suspicion would help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump.

It was the media that was important, not just the FBI.

As a confidential informant Rodney Joffe could not take the information to his FBI handler and simultaneously give that information to the media.  That would be a violation of the CI rules.   If Joffe gave the material to the FBI and then the same FBI saw articles written about the material, they would know: (a) that Joffe violated the rules; and (b) the information was transparently political and thereby useless to them.

However, Michael Sussmann could give the material to the FBI and simultaneously give it to the media in a ‘wrap up smear’ move.

The media were told the FBI had the Alfa-Bank material under investigation, that gave the illusion of credibility. The media then asked the FBI if they did have an investigation of the material and wrote their articles accordingly.

Sundance at Conservative Treehouse
Cue up to :22

The cogent and pragmatic advice is to temper expectations for the Durham Special Counsel outcome and the evidence for that is deep and wide.

Clinton duped ’em all!

How pathetic and utterly destructive to this former Constitutional Republic. Institutional preservation continues to preserve a corrupt, criminal and treasonous slate of institutions while the American people continue to pay for it as they are ushered onto the technocratic global plantation.

Enslavement for all and justice for none except for those on the wrong tier of our two-tiered system.



    • Political Moonshine Post author | May 21, 2022

      Unfortunately, there’s not a grain of evidence to support that claim. From the article preceding this one: “I further examined Durham respective to the suggestion that his appointment occurred by means of interim U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. My findings present as below and were shared in another social media post [cleaned-up for publication here and with emphasis added]: After examining the DOJ website and its archive for several hours, I can’t find a single document referencing Whitaker as the one who appointed Durham special counsel. If it exists, which evidence suggests it doesn’t, it’s not publicly available.

      Durham’s nomination as a US attorney was confirmed in Feb. 2018 and he was subsequently appointed special counsel by Barr in May 2019 according to the order I linked in the original post. When closely examining the @Tore_says article, the featured transcript is referenced to be in October 2018 so that falls within Durham’s capacity as a US attorney. Closely examining the transcript, Baker’s attorney clearly says that Durham is the prosecutor for an active “criminal leak investigation.”

      A criminal leak investigation is essentially a process crime, the type of which I’ve stated that Durham will only produce. There is nothing in the transcript indicating something of more consequence.

      This investigation appears to be within Durham’s regular capacity as a US attorney and not at all related to any role of Durham as a Special Counsel. There is nothing on file that I can find that precedes Barr’s appointment of Durham as special counsel via order ORDER NO. 4878-2020 in May 2019.

      The original scope memo indicates Durham’s efforts began as a review and subsequently developed into a criminal investigation. That indicates that Durham, relative to that order, was not working a criminal investigation respective to what follows in that order. That muddies the waters relative to Baker and the transcript but Barr’s language is clear there.

      The scope memo plainly states, “(a) John Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice” and no further available information from the DOJ indicates otherwise.

      According to available evidence, I think there is substantial documentation to flip the script here and suggest exactly what I’m saying Durham is doing – covering up. By that, I mean that Durham appears to be carving out a “criminal leak investigation” as a process crime to manage the fallout from something unavoidable, which is Baker’s role. That carve-out amounts to a mere slap on the wrist for Baker.

      Moreover, we have this addressed to Barr from Doug Collins and he cites the genesis of the Baker investigation, “In addition to the disclosures noted in the Summary, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut began conducting a criminal investigation into former FBI General Counsel James Baker for leaking information to reporters.4” Taking note of the “4” footnote, it ties back to the same transcript that Tore posted. Full circle.

      They’re carving-out a soft landing spot for Baker. Durham was appointed by Barr. Durham’s appointment was a review that turned into a criminal investigation that was subsequent to Baker’s carve-out. Durham is the cover-up operation.”

  1. Jim May 22, 2022

    Thank you for your detailed response. Your thoroughness is why I like your articles. I am hoping that Durham will at least uncover the entirety of the Russia Hoax. As you state Durham was conducting a criminal investigation as US attorney in 2018 of Baker. As Baker and origins of Russia Gate are intertwined it would appear that Durham has been investigating these issue a year longer than most people realize.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply