Kutsen • 2 minutes ago
Mark Wauck looks at some of the (quiet, ticking) bombshells in Paul Sperry's piece on the state of Durham's investigation.
Excerpt:
...this looks like Durham linking the original Clinton campaign conspiracy to an extended Clinton organization conspiracy. In other words, the campaign conspiracy may have ended with Trump’s inauguration, but the conspiring against Trump simply changed shape—while retaining its ties to the the original conspiracy. We know, for example, that Dan Jones—who formerly worked for Dianne Feinstein—obtained $50 million to do Trump ‘research’. It’s said that this came mostly from wealthy Californians. Friends of Dianne? Whatever the case, if Sperry is right in believing that Jones’ activities were connected to the original Clinton conspiracy, then the conspiracy extends almost indefinitely in time.
This leads to another important point. Much of Durham’s case appears to be built on documentary evidence: emails, money transfers, phone metadata, law firm billing records. That’s the stuff of prosecutors’ dreams—and defense attorneys’ nightmares. Get a few cooperators to expand to a jury on what that all meant and … it’s not a pretty picture for any defendants.
He cites this example (quoting Perry's report):
That indictment, which details a conspiracy involving widespread deception, was followed by a flurry of fresh subpoenas aimed at Perkins Coie itself, rocking the Democratic political machine in Washington. Millions of dollars secretly flowed through Perkins to the Clinton campaign’s opposition-research projects against Trump, leaving an extensive money trail for Durham’s investigators to trace and check for possible Federal Election Commission and other violations, the sources say.
Wauck again:
When it comes to a trial, I believe that Durham will be able to introduce those emails. The impact on the jury—or multiple juries—should be devastating. Once the fraudulent intent of any defendant is established in a specific instance, the skepticism with regard to the defendant’s credibility in any other matter will increase dramatically.
Perry's report is, as Wauck notes at the outset, "information-dense", so Wauck's breakdown is an excellent place to start, for those who are interested:
https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/paul-sperry-another-major-durham