First bombshell in the Sussman trial

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#1 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Fri May 20, 2022 5:35 pm

Hillary herself gave the go ahead to give unsubstantiated dirt to a 'reporter' against Trump that started the Russia Hoax. According to her Campaign Manager. No plausible deniability here.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-cl ... obby-mook/

The Alfa Bank allegations were subsequently proven completely false. Otherwise known as a lie.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... bank-link/
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#2 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri May 20, 2022 7:58 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 5:35 pm
Hillary herself gave the go ahead to give unsubstantiated dirt to a 'reporter' against Trump that started the Russia Hoax. According to her Campaign Manager. No plausible deniability here.
That's not quite what he testified to:
During cross examination, Mook said the campaign was not fully confident in the Alfa Bank allegations and wanted to give them to a reporter so the reporter could "run it down further" and verify it.
Translation: They gave a lead to a reporter. It was the reporter who followed up on the lead. My guess is that you get similar leads in just about every political campaign around nowadays.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#3 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 20, 2022 8:17 pm

I'm not seeing how this is different from Donny's campaign giving reporters leads about Hunter Biden's laptop. Except, of course, that Hunter Biden wasn't running for anything. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#4 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Fri May 20, 2022 8:26 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:17 pm
I'm not seeing how this is different from Donny's campaign giving reporters leads about Hunter Biden's laptop. Except, of course, that Hunter Biden wasn't running for anything. --Bob
Of course you don't, bob. Because truth doesn't enter into any equation for you.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#5 Post by Bob78164 » Fri May 20, 2022 8:28 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:26 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:17 pm
I'm not seeing how this is different from Donny's campaign giving reporters leads about Hunter Biden's laptop. Except, of course, that Hunter Biden wasn't running for anything. --Bob
Of course you don't, bob. Because truth doesn't enter into any equation for you.
Coming from the guy supporting the campaign that went 0 for 60 in court when trying to prove its claims, that's downright risible. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#6 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Fri May 20, 2022 8:36 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:28 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:26 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:17 pm
I'm not seeing how this is different from Donny's campaign giving reporters leads about Hunter Biden's laptop. Except, of course, that Hunter Biden wasn't running for anything. --Bob
Of course you don't, bob. Because truth doesn't enter into any equation for you.
Coming from the guy supporting the campaign that went 0 for 60 in court when trying to prove its claims, that's downright risible. --Bob
Um, bob. Changing the subject will get you no points here.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#7 Post by kroxquo » Sat May 21, 2022 5:20 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:26 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:17 pm
I'm not seeing how this is different from Donny's campaign giving reporters leads about Hunter Biden's laptop. Except, of course, that Hunter Biden wasn't running for anything. --Bob
Of course you don't, bob. Because truth doesn't enter into any equation for you.
I think the parallel is clear. Candidate A gives information of Candidate B committing illegal acts in connection with a foreign actor to a friendly media outlet. Explain to me the difference in these two situations.
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#8 Post by BackInTex » Sat May 21, 2022 6:16 am

kroxquo wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 5:20 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:26 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 8:17 pm
I'm not seeing how this is different from Donny's campaign giving reporters leads about Hunter Biden's laptop. Except, of course, that Hunter Biden wasn't running for anything. --Bob
Of course you don't, bob. Because truth doesn't enter into any equation for you.
I think the parallel is clear. Candidate A gives information of Candidate B committing illegal acts in connection with a foreign actor to a friendly media outlet. Explain to me the difference in these two situations.
One was false, reported by the complicit media as if true, but turned out to be Russian disinformation.
One was true but dismissed by the complicit media and called Russian disinformation.

One was a situation unknown to the campaign but later learned and fed to the media.
One was a situation created, and paid for, by the campaign and fed to the media.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#9 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat May 21, 2022 7:45 am

BackInTex wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 6:16 am
One was a situation created, and paid for, by the campaign and fed to the media.
Based on the testimony at the Sussman trial, the campaign wasn't sure about the lead when they informed Slate Magazine. Exactly how the FBI disproved the story has never been revealed to the public. It may be contained in the documents Durham turned over to Sussman's attorneys, and, if so, the defense will have its opportunity at the trial to bring this out.

Of course, this is all collateral to the main issue, which is whether Sussman lied to the FBI by claiming he wasn't working for the Clinton campaign when he delivered this information. And already, the government's case is proving very weak in that regard. It's based almost exclusively on FBI General Counsel James Baker's recollection of a 2016 meeting with Sussman. Baker since that time made a number of inconsistent statements about how Sussman referred to his clients and that he claims he never took notes of or memorialized that meeting with Sussman.

And of course the Sussman trial is entirely collateral to the main purpose of the investigation, namely to see if any laws were violated in the FBI's investigation of Trump in the first place. That investigation recently celebrated its third anniversary, and this Sussman indictment is the most they have to show for it. I'm not an expert on federal criminal law, but if any alleged crimes occurred in 2016, the statute of limitations may be close to running out on prosecution for them (if it hasn't already done so).
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#10 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon May 23, 2022 7:55 am

The willful blindness of some of you is sad.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, on the orders of Clinton herself, sent this bogus story to the press and sold it to the FBI. The FBI subsequently found it to be completely false, but the press not only did not bother to even attempt to verify it, they gleefully ran with it for all it was worth. All this snowballed into a 3 year circle jerk fueled by the democrat machine and their lapdog press that sabotaged the Trump administration.

Mueller and his democrat staff, after 2 1/2 years of wasting taxpayer money trying to find a crime to pin on trump could not do it as much as they wanted to, but left a smarmy opening to continue the hoax.

But that's ok for some of you. Nothing to see here.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#11 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon May 23, 2022 8:29 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 7:55 am
The willful blindness of some of you is sad.
Hillary Clinton's campaign, on the orders of Clinton herself, sent this bogus story to the press and sold it to the FBI.
Not exactly what Mook testified to. He said that his staff had approved providing the story to the press and Hillary agreed with the decision. Not exactly the same as her ordering it.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#12 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon May 23, 2022 9:35 am

For those of you who can't get your head around it, here's what it looks like from the perspective of a lot of people:

It is incredible how much DAMAGE this did.

Oh, we can make a connection between trump and this russian bank? That would be great to use against him!
Is it true?
Who cares? As long as it sounds plausible, give it to your guy in Slate. They'll print it, people will read it and it will go from there.
Yeah, and when we get elected and take over, everyone will forget about it anyway.
How does this sound to you Hillary?
GO FOR IT.


And it did go from there. Over the top because of the media, egged on by their democrat handlers and the fact that the 'news' nowadays is driven by ratings and building audiences rather than reporting facts. All based on this. Which had no basis in truth.

But trump wins and all the shmucks that went with it have to keep up the hoax or face the consequences. People covering their asses.

Result: 4 years of lying, defamation and slander of trump in order to keep the truth from coming out: that the whole 'russian collusion' thing was a lie that started from a dirty campaign trick. Trump's foreign policy is handcuffed by all this, especially when it came to Russia, which further isolated Putin. It is not hard to make the case that this could have led to what is now happening in Ukraine.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#13 Post by BackInTex » Mon May 23, 2022 10:13 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:35 am
For those of you who can't get your head around it, here's what it looks like from the perspective of a lot of people:

It is incredible how much DAMAGE this did.

Oh, we can make a connection between trump and this russian bank? That would be great to use against him!
Is it true?
Who cares? As long as it sounds plausible, give it to your guy in Slate. They'll print it, people will read it and it will go from there.
Yeah, and when we get elected and take over, everyone will forget about it anyway.
How does this sound to you Hillary?
GO FOR IT.


And it did go from there. Over the top because of the media, egged on by their democrat handlers and the fact that the 'news' nowadays is driven by ratings and building audiences rather than reporting facts. All based on this. Which had no basis in truth.

But trump wins and all the shmucks that went with it have to keep up the hoax or face the consequences. People covering their asses.

Result: 4 years of lying, defamation and slander of trump in order to keep the truth from coming out: that the whole 'russian collusion' thing was a lie that started from a dirty campaign trick. Trump's foreign policy is handcuffed by all this, especially when it came to Russia, which further isolated Putin. It is not hard to make the case that this could have led to what is now happening in Ukraine.
Flock, we're dealing with folk who don't give rat's ass about right or wrong. This is all similar to when Harry Reid outright lied about Mitt Romney's taxes and when the truth came out and Reid not only was unapologetic, took pride in what he'd done and commented "He didn't win did he?"
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#14 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Mon May 23, 2022 10:38 am

BackInTex wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 10:13 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:35 am
For those of you who can't get your head around it, here's what it looks like from the perspective of a lot of people:

It is incredible how much DAMAGE this did.

Oh, we can make a connection between trump and this russian bank? That would be great to use against him!
Is it true?
Who cares? As long as it sounds plausible, give it to your guy in Slate. They'll print it, people will read it and it will go from there.
Yeah, and when we get elected and take over, everyone will forget about it anyway.
How does this sound to you Hillary?
GO FOR IT.


And it did go from there. Over the top because of the media, egged on by their democrat handlers and the fact that the 'news' nowadays is driven by ratings and building audiences rather than reporting facts. All based on this. Which had no basis in truth.

But trump wins and all the shmucks that went with it have to keep up the hoax or face the consequences. People covering their asses.

Result: 4 years of lying, defamation and slander of trump in order to keep the truth from coming out: that the whole 'russian collusion' thing was a lie that started from a dirty campaign trick. Trump's foreign policy is handcuffed by all this, especially when it came to Russia, which further isolated Putin. It is not hard to make the case that this could have led to what is now happening in Ukraine.
Flock, we're dealing with folk who don't give rat's ass about right or wrong. This is all similar to when Harry Reid outright lied about Mitt Romney's taxes and when the truth came out and Reid not only was unapologetic, took pride in what he'd done and commented "He didn't win did he?"
Dennis Prager has ventured that there is a difference between liberals and leftists. bob and the stalker I put into the leftist category. Their religion is politics, and they can't be swayed by any logic or facts from their viewpoints. But liberals are at heart good people who just want to do what they think is morally right.

https://dennisprager.com/column/the-lef ... -for-them/

I have no quarrel with the liberals on this bored. I would classify myself as a liberal in many areas, but like many other things, the left has changed and redefined the definition of the term. I know what I post here on this little tiny bulletin board doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. But maybe it will get one of them thinking.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#15 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon May 23, 2022 12:06 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Mon May 23, 2022 10:38 am
I would classify myself as a liberal in many areas.
Those areas are well, well hidden. And I can be swayed by logic or facts, very little of either you ever post on this Bored.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#16 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue May 24, 2022 1:14 pm

I wonder how the Mueller team of high-powered investigators missed this?
I don't remember them mentioning this.
Do you?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#17 Post by kroxquo » Tue May 31, 2022 10:14 am

And Sussman found not guilty. Or as the 45th President would have said, he was fully vindicated.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/politics ... index.html
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#18 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue May 31, 2022 10:18 am

Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI in Durham investigation

Durhan's flimsy case falls apart. The jury deliberated for six hours over two days following two weeks of testimony. As Shakespeare labeled it, Much Ado about Nothing.

From the Washington Post's story, which is behind their paywall:
Despite the trial’s frequent references to Clinton, Trump and other political figures, the prosecutor insisted that “this case is not about politics, it’s not about conspiracy, it’s about the truth.” Sussmann lied, [prosecutor] DeFilippis said, because if he’d told the FBI that he was acting on behalf of Clinton, the FBI was less likely to consider his evidence or open an investigation.

The jury ultimately rejected those claims, apparently swayed by the argument from Sussmann’s lawyer, Sean Berkowitz, countered that the prosecution was trying to turn a brief 30-minute meeting more than five years ago into a “giant political conspiracy theory.” Prosecutors showed the jury emails, law-firm billing records and even a Staples receipt for thumb drives to tie Sussmann to the Clinton campaign. But Berkowitz said much of the witness testimony showed that the Clinton campaign did not want the Alfa Bank allegations taken to the FBI, because they preferred to see a news story about the issue and feared an investigation might complicate or delay such stories. “There is a difference,” Berkowitz said, “between having a client, and doing something on their behalf.” He ridiculed prosecutors for painting as nefarious efforts to dig up damaging information about Trump for a campaign. “Opposition research is not illegal,” he said, adding that if it was, “the jails of Washington, D.C., would be teeming over.”

Berkowitz readily conceded that Sussmann talked to reporters as part of his job, including journalists for The Washington Post and Reuters. He said prosecutors brought the case because they suffered from “tunnel vision” over two news stories in Slate and the New York Times that appeared on Oct. 31, 2016, and — he argued — had little impact on the campaign. "That’s the story? That’s the leak? That’s the conspiracy? Please,” Berkowitz said.

The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all. Baker was the sole direct witness to the conversation, since Sussmann did not testify. Sussmann’s lawyers repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#19 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue May 31, 2022 6:58 pm

Oh, well. Another day in Washington DC.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#20 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:15 am

Byron York writes:
WHAT DURHAM PROVED. The trial of Michael Sussmann is before a jury in Washington, D.C. Sussmann is the Democratic lawyer who, according to special counsel John Durham, lied to the FBI in 2016 when, working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, he tried to plant a derogatory story about Donald Trump. The hope was that the FBI would start an investigation and then the campaign conversation would be: TRUMP IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION!

There is no doubt Sussmann lied to the FBI. There is no doubt he is guilty. But the trial is taking place in Washington, perhaps the deepest-blue jury pool in the United States. Durham's prosecutors are "facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann's daughter," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said recently on Fox News. "With the exception of randomly selecting people out of DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury."

So the jury might reject Durham's evidence — juries are free to do that. Or it might convict. Whatever it does, though, Durham has already made some important points about the actions of the Clinton campaign in the 2016 election.

The biggest point Durham has made is that an arm of the Clinton campaign developed a strategy to weaponize the FBI to investigate Clinton's political opponent. Starting around the time of the 2016 Democratic convention, with the Russian hack of Democratic National Committee emails, the Clinton campaign made a concerted effort to accuse Trump falsely of acting in collusion with Russia. At the Sussmann trial, Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, testified that effort was focused on feeding information to reporters — the old-fashioned way to spread dirt.

But lawyers working for the campaign went beyond the old-fashioned way. They tried to enlist the FBI in the operation, to spur the investigation. That would turbocharge the story, allowing reporters to say the allegations were so serious that federal law enforcement was investigating.

That's why, when a team of pro-Clinton researchers came up with a theory that there were suspicious computer connections between a Russian bank, Alfa-Bank, and the Trump campaign, Sussmann took it to the FBI. He did it on behalf of the Clinton campaign. He billed the campaign for the work. Yet he specifically told the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of the campaign, that he was just doing it as a concerned citizen. In September 2016, when Sussmann requested a meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, Sussmann texted, "Jim — it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. 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."

But Sussmann was doing it on behalf of a client — the Clinton campaign.

Besides showing that an arm of the Clinton campaign sought to weaponize the FBI, the Sussmann trial has shown that the FBI was eager to be weaponized. We learned that a senior FBI agent involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, Joe Pientka, sent a note to another agent about the Alfa-Bank tip: "People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server. Reachout and put tools on...it's not an option — we must do it." The FBI building's seventh floor is where top management, including then-Director James Comey, had offices.

So those are two major revelations from the Sussmann trial: Elements in and around the Clinton campaign sought to weaponize the FBI, and the FBI welcomed the effort — all in the name of defeating the Republican nominee for president.

In the end, the Alfa-Bank story did not have a big influence on the campaign. One or two reporters fell for it, but the FBI could never verify any of it, and much of the press stayed away — for one simple reason: It was bogus.

But remember, this was the same team of Clinton lawyers and the FBI that brought the world the Steele dossier. And that did have a big influence. Even though the FBI's agents could never verify the dossier's allegations — they were bogus, too — Comey wanted to include some of them in the Intelligence Community Assessment, which was the intelligence community's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. And then, of course, Comey briefed both then-President Barack Obama and Trump, by then the president-elect, on it. And then the fact of those briefings leaked to the press — it must be important if top intelligence chiefs are briefing it to the president and the president-elect. And then the whole dossier leaked to the public, resulting in years of frenzied conversation and debate about its phony allegations.

So the Clinton strategy worked. No, it did not make Clinton president of the U.S. The voters just did not want that. But it did enormous damage to the Trump presidency and the Trump administration. We've been learning how the anti-Trump strategy worked for several years now, beginning with the evidence uncovered by Devin Nunes when he chaired the House Intelligence Committee. Now, the Durham investigation has told us even more. No matter the verdict, that is valuable.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#21 Post by Bob Juch » Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:17 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:15 am
Byron York writes:
WHAT DURHAM PROVED. The trial of Michael Sussmann is before a jury in Washington, D.C. Sussmann is the Democratic lawyer who, according to special counsel John Durham, lied to the FBI in 2016 when, working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, he tried to plant a derogatory story about Donald Trump. The hope was that the FBI would start an investigation and then the campaign conversation would be: TRUMP IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION!

There is no doubt Sussmann lied to the FBI. There is no doubt he is guilty. But the trial is taking place in Washington, perhaps the deepest-blue jury pool in the United States. Durham's prosecutors are "facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann's daughter," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said recently on Fox News. "With the exception of randomly selecting people out of DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury."

So the jury might reject Durham's evidence — juries are free to do that. Or it might convict. Whatever it does, though, Durham has already made some important points about the actions of the Clinton campaign in the 2016 election.

The biggest point Durham has made is that an arm of the Clinton campaign developed a strategy to weaponize the FBI to investigate Clinton's political opponent. Starting around the time of the 2016 Democratic convention, with the Russian hack of Democratic National Committee emails, the Clinton campaign made a concerted effort to accuse Trump falsely of acting in collusion with Russia. At the Sussmann trial, Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, testified that effort was focused on feeding information to reporters — the old-fashioned way to spread dirt.

But lawyers working for the campaign went beyond the old-fashioned way. They tried to enlist the FBI in the operation, to spur the investigation. That would turbocharge the story, allowing reporters to say the allegations were so serious that federal law enforcement was investigating.

That's why, when a team of pro-Clinton researchers came up with a theory that there were suspicious computer connections between a Russian bank, Alfa-Bank, and the Trump campaign, Sussmann took it to the FBI. He did it on behalf of the Clinton campaign. He billed the campaign for the work. Yet he specifically told the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of the campaign, that he was just doing it as a concerned citizen. In September 2016, when Sussmann requested a meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, Sussmann texted, "Jim — it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. 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."

But Sussmann was doing it on behalf of a client — the Clinton campaign.

Besides showing that an arm of the Clinton campaign sought to weaponize the FBI, the Sussmann trial has shown that the FBI was eager to be weaponized. We learned that a senior FBI agent involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, Joe Pientka, sent a note to another agent about the Alfa-Bank tip: "People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server. Reachout and put tools on...it's not an option — we must do it." The FBI building's seventh floor is where top management, including then-Director James Comey, had offices.

So those are two major revelations from the Sussmann trial: Elements in and around the Clinton campaign sought to weaponize the FBI, and the FBI welcomed the effort — all in the name of defeating the Republican nominee for president.

In the end, the Alfa-Bank story did not have a big influence on the campaign. One or two reporters fell for it, but the FBI could never verify any of it, and much of the press stayed away — for one simple reason: It was bogus.

But remember, this was the same team of Clinton lawyers and the FBI that brought the world the Steele dossier. And that did have a big influence. Even though the FBI's agents could never verify the dossier's allegations — they were bogus, too — Comey wanted to include some of them in the Intelligence Community Assessment, which was the intelligence community's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. And then, of course, Comey briefed both then-President Barack Obama and Trump, by then the president-elect, on it. And then the fact of those briefings leaked to the press — it must be important if top intelligence chiefs are briefing it to the president and the president-elect. And then the whole dossier leaked to the public, resulting in years of frenzied conversation and debate about its phony allegations.

So the Clinton strategy worked. No, it did not make Clinton president of the U.S. The voters just did not want that. But it did enormous damage to the Trump presidency and the Trump administration. We've been learning how the anti-Trump strategy worked for several years now, beginning with the evidence uncovered by Devin Nunes when he chaired the House Intelligence Committee. Now, the Durham investigation has told us even more. No matter the verdict, that is valuable.
Byron York is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

I hope he has a good attorney to defend him from libel.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#22 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:22 am

Bob Juch wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:17 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:15 am
Byron York writes:
WHAT DURHAM PROVED. The trial of Michael Sussmann is before a jury in Washington, D.C. Sussmann is the Democratic lawyer who, according to special counsel John Durham, lied to the FBI in 2016 when, working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, he tried to plant a derogatory story about Donald Trump. The hope was that the FBI would start an investigation and then the campaign conversation would be: TRUMP IS UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION!

There is no doubt Sussmann lied to the FBI. There is no doubt he is guilty. But the trial is taking place in Washington, perhaps the deepest-blue jury pool in the United States. Durham's prosecutors are "facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team as Sussmann's daughter," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said recently on Fox News. "With the exception of randomly selecting people out of DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury."

So the jury might reject Durham's evidence — juries are free to do that. Or it might convict. Whatever it does, though, Durham has already made some important points about the actions of the Clinton campaign in the 2016 election.

The biggest point Durham has made is that an arm of the Clinton campaign developed a strategy to weaponize the FBI to investigate Clinton's political opponent. Starting around the time of the 2016 Democratic convention, with the Russian hack of Democratic National Committee emails, the Clinton campaign made a concerted effort to accuse Trump falsely of acting in collusion with Russia. At the Sussmann trial, Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, testified that effort was focused on feeding information to reporters — the old-fashioned way to spread dirt.

But lawyers working for the campaign went beyond the old-fashioned way. They tried to enlist the FBI in the operation, to spur the investigation. That would turbocharge the story, allowing reporters to say the allegations were so serious that federal law enforcement was investigating.

That's why, when a team of pro-Clinton researchers came up with a theory that there were suspicious computer connections between a Russian bank, Alfa-Bank, and the Trump campaign, Sussmann took it to the FBI. He did it on behalf of the Clinton campaign. He billed the campaign for the work. Yet he specifically told the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of the campaign, that he was just doing it as a concerned citizen. In September 2016, when Sussmann requested a meeting with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, Sussmann texted, "Jim — it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. 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."

But Sussmann was doing it on behalf of a client — the Clinton campaign.

Besides showing that an arm of the Clinton campaign sought to weaponize the FBI, the Sussmann trial has shown that the FBI was eager to be weaponized. We learned that a senior FBI agent involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, Joe Pientka, sent a note to another agent about the Alfa-Bank tip: "People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server. Reachout and put tools on...it's not an option — we must do it." The FBI building's seventh floor is where top management, including then-Director James Comey, had offices.

So those are two major revelations from the Sussmann trial: Elements in and around the Clinton campaign sought to weaponize the FBI, and the FBI welcomed the effort — all in the name of defeating the Republican nominee for president.

In the end, the Alfa-Bank story did not have a big influence on the campaign. One or two reporters fell for it, but the FBI could never verify any of it, and much of the press stayed away — for one simple reason: It was bogus.

But remember, this was the same team of Clinton lawyers and the FBI that brought the world the Steele dossier. And that did have a big influence. Even though the FBI's agents could never verify the dossier's allegations — they were bogus, too — Comey wanted to include some of them in the Intelligence Community Assessment, which was the intelligence community's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. And then, of course, Comey briefed both then-President Barack Obama and Trump, by then the president-elect, on it. And then the fact of those briefings leaked to the press — it must be important if top intelligence chiefs are briefing it to the president and the president-elect. And then the whole dossier leaked to the public, resulting in years of frenzied conversation and debate about its phony allegations.

So the Clinton strategy worked. No, it did not make Clinton president of the U.S. The voters just did not want that. But it did enormous damage to the Trump presidency and the Trump administration. We've been learning how the anti-Trump strategy worked for several years now, beginning with the evidence uncovered by Devin Nunes when he chaired the House Intelligence Committee. Now, the Durham investigation has told us even more. No matter the verdict, that is valuable.
Byron York is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

I hope he has a good attorney to defend him from libel.
What, you gonna sue him, BJ?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#23 Post by Bob Juch » Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:27 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:22 am
Bob Juch wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:17 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:15 am
Byron York writes:

Byron York is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

I hope he has a good attorney to defend him from libel.
What, you gonna sue him, BJ?
No, Sussman should for him saying, "There is no doubt Sussmann lied to the FBI. There is no doubt he is guilty."
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#24 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:41 am

Bob Juch wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:27 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:22 am
Bob Juch wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:17 am


Byron York is the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

I hope he has a good attorney to defend him from libel.
What, you gonna sue him, BJ?
No, Sussman should for him saying, "There is no doubt Sussmann lied to the FBI. There is no doubt he is guilty."
The RNC should sue you for your avatar, then.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: First bombshell in the Sussman trial

#25 Post by Bob Juch » Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:50 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:41 am
Bob Juch wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:27 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 10:22 am

What, you gonna sue him, BJ?
No, Sussman should for him saying, "There is no doubt Sussmann lied to the FBI. There is no doubt he is guilty."
The RNC should sue you for your avatar, then.
More deflection. There'd be plenty of evidence in my defense if the RNC bothered to sue me.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

Post Reply