Eric Garland vs Hillary Clinton: False Narrativ
Let's unpack the contradictions.
Yesterday, Eric Garland went on a web-only vlog that I won’t link to, (as it contains baseless allegations against a third party), and made some quite remarkable wrong statements about the Hillary Clinton campaign, John Durham, the Alfa Bank server and Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who pled guilty to altering information about Carter Page - in a foolish attempt to ‘clarify’ it - and got probation from the judge.
Eric Garland contradicted his own thread in less than 24 hours, which has to be something of a record. He’s wrong about John Durham, who, as I wrote yesterday, is a legal joke; wrong about the Alfa Bank - Trump server, and wrong about, well, basically, everything. But in his eagerness to attack Hillary Clinton and her campaign, Mr. Garland trod all over his own, equally false, thread narrative about Kevin Clinesmith.
Eric Garland Denied Falsely Attacking Hillary Clinton
Yesterday, I pointed out that Eric Garland’s attack thread on Hillary Clinton’s campaign had led readers to believe that Kevin Clinesmith’s (wrong and regrettable) alteration of Carter Page’s long-since former informant status had a) invalidated his FISA warrant b) was part of a “fairly large conspiracy” to hurt FISA warrants and c) was a serious offense where the “juicy deets” were in the “Government” (aka John Durham’s) sentencing memo. My piece debunked all three wrong assertions.
However, yesterday on the vlog Mr. Garland took it up a notch. First, there was the presenter’s assertion that he “hadn’t falsely attacked Hillary Clinton.” Eric agreed.
(There are lots more.)
OK, so having established that Eric Garland had, in fact, attacked Hillary Clinton - whether falsely or not, readers should decide, but he sure did attack her - and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, let’s move on to the false narrative on the vlog about the Alfa Bank server, the Clinton campaign, the FBI and Carter Page.
Eric Garland Totally Contradicts His Own Thread Within A Day
Here’s my attempt at a transcript of what Eric says at about 57 minutes in to the video:
And you know, for the people that want to cast aspersions on this… you know, I’m going to take it the exact same way that the prosecutors do in this matter: what are the facts before us, who lied…. and you know if this is such a airtight story - and it was funny, I saw that you know that I have a variety of not all that organic looking Twitter accounts [saying] “nobody’s proved the Alfa Bank story wrong”- like that’s not true, the FBI have been very very clear on this, that they’ve they looked into it and it has no validity…. [I’ll] go with the story from, you know, from the vantage point of facts. If this was such an airtight story, then why are people lying about it? Why are you lying about whether you’re charging the Clinton campaign for it? [LM: Eric is referring to Sussman visiting the FBI to talk about the the Alfa pings] why are you lying about whether Carter Page talked to the CIA? [LM: Eric Garland has now jumped from referring to Sussman to referring to Kevin Clinesmith]… but “I don’t know him[Page]” but they did.
And there’s all sorts of forensic evidence proving that this Clinesmith guy who, we know, pleaded to a criminal information count good and early, and I believe got probation… which is generally the sign that somebody’s very cooperative, and may have indicated the other members of a conspiracy… that’s what’ll get you out of that kind of hot water. Because when you’re talking about sabotaging a National Security investigation… getting probation? Just “don’t get caught drunk driving” and, you know, “check in once every few weeks” or whatever, you have to usually provide some significant assistance to the government in order to have prosecutors be willing to tell the court that they’re OK with that being that person‘s penalty. So that suggests that Mr. Clinesmith has been very helpful to the US government - and by helpful that that usually means putting another people away - so it seems unlikely that this is going to be constrained to three individuals.
OK. So, I want to be fair, and the Alfa Bank pings do require at least one and probably more than one separate pieces; let’s leave them for later. (But in sum, so as not to frustrate readers, Durham is denying something nobody asserted - he denies the FBI established a communications channel between the two servers, whereas what I reported, is that the FISA warrant targeted on Alfa Bank was around financial offenses, that is, monetary transfers).
Let’s debunk the Eric Errors above.
…I have a variety of not all that organic looking Twitter accounts [saying] “nobody’s proved the Alfa Bank story wrong”- like that’s not true, the FBI have been very very clear on this, that they’ve they looked into it and it has no validity
In fact, the Durham indictments confirm that far from considering the Alfa Server - Trump server story in any way “debunked”, it was passed to a second government agency.
If there is “nothing to it”, the FBI just drop the investigation. They don’t go (for example) “oh look! there are no communications in this decrypted packet data but there are money transfers, hey FINCEN…” or “….oh look! these aren’t messages we think they might be voter databases, hey NSA”. They just say “Oh look! It was email marketing spam, no harm no foul” and they drop it. More on that in a separate piece.
If this was such an airtight story, then why are people lying about it? Why are you lying about whether you’re charging the Clinton campaign for it?
OK. That is indeed what John Durham is charging in his indictment, and Eric Garland believes Durham’s right. Good for him.
Why are you lying about whether Carter Page talked to the CIA?
This part is where Eric Garland’s apparent animus to Hillary Clinton gets the best of him. What the hell does Kevin Clinesmith, a career FBI prosecutor, who was not paid by Hillary Clinton, who had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, have to do with Michael Sussman? The Carter Page FISA warrant, which a judge ruled was valid and would have been granted anyway, had nothing to do with the Alfa Bank FISA warrant. There is no reporting anywhere and there are no statements in Durham’s indictments or his motions that the the Carter Page FISA is in LITERALLY ANY WAY connected with “this airtight story” as Eric Garland refers to the Alfa Bank pings.
Why is Garland connecting the two? Durham doesn’t.
this Clinesmith guy who, we know, pleaded to a criminal information count good and early, and I believe got probation
Yes he did. You left that important info out of your anti Hillary Campaign and pro-Durham thread.
which is generally the sign that somebody’s very cooperative, and may have indicated the other members of a conspiracy… that’s what’ll get you out of that kind of hot water. Because when you’re talking about sabotaging a National Security investigation… getting probation? Just “don’t get caught drunk driving” and, you know, “check in once every few weeks” or whatever,
Yes. It was a very low sentence, the lowest possible sentence. Clinesmith got that sentence because the judge didn’t believe that what he did warranted anything more. The judge would have granted the FISA warrant on Carter Page even without the Clinesmith alteration. He literally said so.
you have to usually provide some significant assistance to the government in order to have prosecutors be willing to tell the court that they’re OK with that being that person‘s penalty. So that suggests that Mr. Clinesmith has been very helpful to the US government - and by helpful that that usually means putting another people away - so it seems unlikely that this is going to be constrained to three individuals.
Eric, see, here’s why I have such a problem with your threads. There are two main reasons for a light sentence. Co-operation, as you suggest, and that the judge didn’t think anything you did was particularly bad. But you know that Clinesmith DID NOT “co-operate”. You KNOW that prosecutors DID NOT tell the court they were “OK” with probation - and you know that Clinesmith’s light punishment in no way at all suggests, as you say here, that he implicated other individuals. Why do I say you know this? Because you wrote about it at length in your own darned thread. Time for some Game Theory:
Seriously, Eric, how do you explain telling your readers and listeners two diametrically opposite things about the same dude on the same day?
Do facts matter? Is this the basis on which you’re blaming the Clinton campaign and siding with John Durham?
Have your say in the comments!
So glad we have you & Spicy to spell out and explain things. His thread the last couple days have been confusing because he throws things out as he goes. He started strong against Clinton the first day and now acts like maybe she was set up. He’s just doing that because he’s starting to see new things come out and he’s trying to backtrack or hedge his bets. My issue is his thread can cause damage. He doesn’t say it’s “his opinion or speculation on his part”. He acts like he’s in the know when he is not. He does not have a IC source. Next time he should wait til all the information comes out before he writes a thread. He should feel a responsibility to his followers to get things right as much as he can, but apparently he does not feel that way. I do.
LMAO at his amazing ability to publicly make an ass out of himself over and over and over again.
You’ve made great points here. And kudos to you for listening to and transcribing the crazy segment. I had to stop after a few minutes because his nervous tics and weirdly inappropriate facial expressions were too hard to watch,