What to make of the Durham filing?
- Thread starter Courtsensetwo
- Start date
Well, he's lying about that. Or else he was the most clueless guy in the FBI hierarchy.
"All of it was an attempt to keep a non politician out of politics and especially one that threatened every deep seeded corrupt political hack already in DC. It could have happened to anyone that messaged the same"...
I see it quite a bit differently, and feel the FBI was more motivated by Trump's words and actions and the threat they may have felt he posed. To the degree it may have been a concerted effort, the FBI's (which is full of life long Republicans) motive was more likely to keep someone crazy enough to hire people the FBI suspected of having split loyalties (Manafort,Page) out of US politics... Manafort was undeniably involved with pro-Putin forces in Ukraine, and as recently as 2013 FBI wiretaps picked up known Russian GRU agents describing efforts to recruit Page, who they categorized as a "useful idiot"...
In case you're unaware, the term "useful idiot" is a KGB phrase that refers to NON-COMMUNIST (later non-Russian people, per se) who are susceptible to Russian propaganda and manipulation. So what kind of US political candidate thinks hiring people of this background makes sense? And wouldn't you ( as an American, not a Trumpist) want that type of move to at least spark curiosity within the FBI?
No doubt you'll never admit that, but you're remarkably uninformed on the kind of people Trump hired in April 2016. As to the trial, you're getting your info /analysis from a writer at the Epoch Times, the nutjob propaganda piece of the Rev Moon and his lunatic followers. It comes unsolicited in my home mailbox every month, so I'm well aware of what it is...
Now this analysis is from one of my sources, who I'm sure because he's a Democrat you'll view as just as biased. But Litman is at least someone who knows what he's talking about having been a Federal Prosecutor for 25 yrs.
In other words he sat in the prosecutions shoes, so when he characterizes this case as "fluff", at least he has experience to base that opinion on...
It's as if you haven't read anything about this case. The reason Baker was forced to limit his recollection to 75%, is that the first FBI agent who debriefed him said Baker's notes were indecipherable and when he asked Baker, Baker couldn't remember if Sussman claimed he wasn't working for a client or not. He then told severable people basically the same thing, only changing his version of events AFTER Durham interviewed him and changed his memory. This is all included in various briefs filed prior to trial...
Looks like a jury question to me.
So if a jury convicts, the left will claim "corrupt courts"
If they acquit, Trump will claim "corrupt courts."
Either way, add jury trials to the list of American institutions destroyed by partisan shenanigans.
I miss the United States. It was a hell of a country.
So if a jury convicts, the left will claim "corrupt courts"
If they acquit, Trump will claim "corrupt courts."
Either way, add jury trials to the list of American institutions destroyed by partisan shenanigans.
I miss the United States. It was a hell of a country.
Baker has only been "under oath" during the trial. He gave "different stories" in conversations with fellow FBI agents, including the first one he talked to who debriefed him following the meeting with Sussman. It was just Baker and Sussman in the room and Baker's notes were impossible to decipher.
The whole idea that Sussman told Baker that he wasn't working for a client, only appeared in Baker's accounts of the meeting after he had been coached by Durham. Prior to that, he basically was telling people he didn't remember. The fact that Baker didn't even initially recall whether Sussman said he did or did not have a client, tells you how ludicrous this whole charge is. And how after 3 years, Durham is desperate to provide some sort of "face saving" revelation to justify the money wasted on this probe...
Exactly what charge are you basing that on? Sharing suspicions about another campaign with the press?
Meanwhile we know that Manafort gave specific polling data to his buddy (Konstantin Kilimnik) a known Russian Intelligence agent that Manfort likely knew from his days working with Yanukovych in Ukraine...
Trump campaign chief Manafort's associate Kilimnik gave Russia 2016 election strategy, polling, U.S. says
Konstantin Kilimnik, who has been identified as a Russian intelligence agent, worked closely with Paul Manafort, the 2016 Trump campaign chairman.
We also know that Kilmnik was a main purveyor of the Russian disinformation campaign which claimed that Ukraine, not the Russians interferred in the 2016 election...
Now not that I think you've given this much thought, but I'd still be interested in why you would advocate to lock Clinton up for the "crime" of- I don't even know what crime she committed, but whatever it was it seems to have involved sharing her campaign's suspicions about Trump with who- the press? I mean isn't that pretty much what constitutes a negative campaign ad?
Meanwhile we know that people within the Trump campaign were sharing info with Russian agents. Mueller didn't feel it rose to the level of a criminal conspiracy, but no one involved is disputing it happened...
I have a long history here and the idea that I haven’t supported, and don’t support, and don’t say positive things about Republicans is incredibly inaccurate. That you followed that up by calling me a Mitt Romney, who is also a Republican makes your post ironic. You don’t like any Republican who doesn’t also genuflect (look it up) before Trump. That’s because you’re actually a Trumpster, not a Republican.Yes unfortunately I have. I'm tired of assholes shooting them down. Move on. Tired of all you dems. You and your party suck and quit saying your a pub. Show me a positive post about pubs you have posted? There should be a few since you claim you are one. Your'e a mitt romney.
AND get over Trump...You and half this board are so TDS its sickening. I've alway said if Trump is guilty hang him. He aint...Dems are. Everything is good ALOHA
Gas is 4 f*cking 59
A trip to the grocery store and what you wind up with is a joke.
Moms can't feed their babies.
Pronouns are "The Topic" of the country right now. OHHH and ufo's
We just gave our politicians a 40 billion dollar raise.
The border is FUBAR
Fentynal deaths have skyrocketed.
There is a 43% increase in police shot in 2022
Housing? Hahaha
101 police officers shot in line of duty, a 43% increase from 2021
The latest figure marks a 43% increase compared to the number of officers shot at the same time period in 2021 and a 63% increase compared to 2020.nypost.com
Apartments? Find a cheap one in a decent neighborhood.
THE Stock Market is plunging!
I could go ON AND ON
Look Aloha. I'll sip this beer and ask you this? Before Covid hit under Trump was the world normal and affordable?
You can answer however you please. I WANT THAT BACK!
Last edited:
”I see”, ”I feel”, lol, you’re a disinformation clown bot & shill for the Kremlin.🤣🤣🤣
You’d be the expert on the Stone Age, wouldn’t you? Not sure what your point is exactly. As I said I’m still in the schools often.
Marxists? Do you go out of your way to look foolish? You still don’t even understand how to interpret the Mueller report.
Sort of ironic you posting all these Musk tweets on the day the story about his "alleged" sexual harassment of an employee (coincidentally also in 2016) broke. Now Elon is going to (or has already claimed) that this was some "left wing plot" to discredit him. But what motivation would the Left have to discredit the prime purveyor of Electric Autos (which they favor) in 2016?
And when she filed action against him in 2018 for her claim that he was attempting to force her out of her job, why exactly did he settle and pay her $250,000? Strange how he makes this huge announcement embracing MAGA and posts all these tweets on the same day all of these events from 2016 and 2018 are revealed...
And he even foreshadowed it was coming and the Left was going to attack him? But events in 2016 and 2018 had nothing to do with Elon's purchase of Twitter. Heck Trump was still on Twitter in 2018 when Elon settled...
You truly are an idiot...and you aren't even particularly "useful"...
Last edited:
Can you explain what these tweets have to do with the court case? The case involves a single charge of lying to the FBI in a Sept 2016 meeting, and your "correspondent" from the Epoch Times is tweeting references to meetings that took place AFTER the alleged crime. I imagine the jury is wondering the same thing...
Comrade Putin thanks you for your service. Your sacrifice of any life beyond regurgitating left wing propaganda is a truly impressive commitment to the cause…
Wouldn't you think an FBI agent would tell the truth without being under oath?
I would. I guess you're fine with him not telling the truth all the time - especially when it would benefit Democrats.
The single charge is that Sussman told Baker he wasn't working for any specific client. The problem is despite what he may have said yesterday about being 100% sure, that is not what he said in questioning by House subcommittee members. In fact he only started to express his current position after Durham began pressing him and apparently convinced him that he did in fact remember. To this point the Durham probe has lasted longer than the Mueller investigation...
The reality is that Baker likely doesn't remember and there is no reason to expect him to. It was a meeting with a friend and it didn't amount to anything. There is no reason for Baker to commit every facet to memory because he didn't consider it a big deal So when he found himself being grilled by the likes of Jim Jordan in a 2018 subcommittee session, he was reluctant to allow Jordan to bully him into making claims that he wasn't sure were true or not. Jordan is the epitome of obnoxious and annoying with his whiny sneer...From the Sept lawfare analysis I linked to previously...Regarding the subcommittee grilling...
"Baker makes clear there are a bunch of facts about the interaction that he doesn’t remember all that well—which is hardly surprising, given that it was presumably not a meeting he expected to have to testify about years after the fact. He says, for example, that he doesn’t remember whether Sussmann told him in advance what he was coming over to talk about (p. 99) and that he wasn’t sure whether it was Bill Priestap or Pete Strzok to whom he referred the matter, though he thinks it was Priestap and knows he did it “within minutes” (pp. 99-100)."
Jordan (who put a lot more effort into defending Trump, than he did the wrestlers he coached at OSU) tried to bully Baker into acknowledging that on that specific day he knew that Sussmann worked for the Clinton campaign. But Baker doesn't remember if he knew that at the time of the meeting, or if he found out later and tells that to Jordan...
"At one point (pp. 122-123), Jordan asks specifically, “And was he representing a client when he brought this information to you? Or just out of the goodness of his heart, someone gave it to him and brought it to you?” This leads to the following exchange:
So what Baker said was that he didn't remember, and specifically that he didn't recall Sussmann specifically addressing whether he had a client or not. That's an honest answer about events two years earlier that you viewed as of little consequence at the time and never expected to have to recall minute details about. That is NOT Baker saying that Sussmann told him he didn't have a client...
Now it's 4 yrs after that, after extensive coaching from a Prosecutor desperate to make a case. Now he suddenly unequivocally remembers details which he already said on numerous occasions that he didn't remember?
That's why he had to amend it to 75%, and why his testimony is so weak. Why would you suddenly remember details that you took no note of initially? It doesn't make any sense, and imho it goes directly to the heart to the concept of reasonable doubt.
Ben Wittes who is editor of Lawfare and wrote the analysis is a friend of Baker's. He surmises that Durham is trying to pressure Sussmann into sacrificing others to save himself. But this is the definition of a weak case, and I'd be beyond shocked if 12 individuals all accepted the story that Durham wants them to believe regarding Baker's remarkable memory transformation...
On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann
The indictment of Michael Sussmann is far removed from the supposedly grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. It’s also a remarkably weak case.
Jet, DANC and Joe Hoosier- the 3 stooges...No idea why you feel the need to shadow me. I'm not even interested enough to read anything you post other than when you address a reply to me...I'm starting to wonder if you graduated high school, much less college...
You should just put me on ignore- we don't even speak the same language.
Prostate acting up this week Cosmo? You seem really edgy . Just what language do you speak Cosmo? It isnt the same one everybody else does that is for sure.
Yes, but there’s the problem.The single charge is that Sussman told Baker he wasn't working for any specific client. The problem is despite what he may have said yesterday about being 100% sure, that is not what he said in questioning by House subcommittee members. In fact he only started to express his current position after Durham began pressing him and apparently convinced him that he did in fact remember. To this point the Durham probe has lasted longer than the Mueller investigation...
The reality is that Baker likely doesn't remember and there is no reason to expect him to. It was a meeting with a friend and it didn't amount to anything. There is no reason for Baker to commit every facet to memory because he didn't consider it a big deal So when he found himself being grilled by the likes of Jim Jordan in a 2018 subcommittee session, he was reluctant to allow Jordan to bully him into making claims that he wasn't sure were true or not. Jordan is the epitome of obnoxious and annoying with his whiny sneer...From the Sept lawfare analysis I linked to previously...Regarding the subcommittee grilling...
"Baker makes clear there are a bunch of facts about the interaction that he doesn’t remember all that well—which is hardly surprising, given that it was presumably not a meeting he expected to have to testify about years after the fact. He says, for example, that he doesn’t remember whether Sussmann told him in advance what he was coming over to talk about (p. 99) and that he wasn’t sure whether it was Bill Priestap or Pete Strzok to whom he referred the matter, though he thinks it was Priestap and knows he did it “within minutes” (pp. 99-100)."
Jordan (who put a lot more effort into defending Trump, than he did the wrestlers he coached at OSU) tried to bully Baker into acknowledging that on that specific day he knew that Sussmann worked for the Clinton campaign. But Baker doesn't remember if he knew that at the time of the meeting, or if he found out later and tells that to Jordan...
"At one point (pp. 122-123), Jordan asks specifically, “And was he representing a client when he brought this information to you? Or just out of the goodness of his heart, someone gave it to him and brought it to you?” This leads to the following exchange:
So what Baker said was that he didn't remember, and specifically that he didn't recall Sussmann specifically addressing whether he had a client or not. That's an honest answer about events two years earlier that you viewed as of little consequence at the time and never expected to have to recall minute details about. That is NOT Baker saying that Sussmann told him he didn't have a client...
Now it's 4 yrs after that, after extensive coaching from a Prosecutor desperate to make a case. Now he suddenly unequivocally remembers details which he already said on numerous occasions that he didn't remember?
That's why he had to amend it to 75%, and why his testimony is so weak. Why would you suddenly remember details that you took no note of initially? It doesn't make any sense, and imho it goes directly to the heart to the concept of reasonable doubt.
Ben Wittes who is editor of Lawfare and wrote the analysis is a friend of Baker's. He surmises that Durham is trying to pressure Sussmann into sacrificing others to save himself. But this is the definition of a weak case, and I'd be beyond shocked if 12 individuals all accepted the story that Durham wants them to believe regarding Baker's remarkable memory transformation...
On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann
The indictment of Michael Sussmann is far removed from the supposedly grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. It’s also a remarkably weak case.www.lawfareblog.com
Powerful FBI agents dont have “just a meeting with a friend” when being encouraged to conduct investigations. (Just another innocent meeting on a tarmac, where faulty memories cant be tested.)
Once his friend started offering him evidence, he should have stopped, gone on record, and brought in other agents. THAT is how you avoid the appearance of impropriety and abuse of power. THAT is also how you avoid convenient memory lapses due to passage of time.
That's a long, blow-hard way of justifying Baker was lying when he wasn't under oath.The single charge is that Sussman told Baker he wasn't working for any specific client. The problem is despite what he may have said yesterday about being 100% sure, that is not what he said in questioning by House subcommittee members. In fact he only started to express his current position after Durham began pressing him and apparently convinced him that he did in fact remember. To this point the Durham probe has lasted longer than the Mueller investigation...
The reality is that Baker likely doesn't remember and there is no reason to expect him to. It was a meeting with a friend and it didn't amount to anything. There is no reason for Baker to commit every facet to memory because he didn't consider it a big deal So when he found himself being grilled by the likes of Jim Jordan in a 2018 subcommittee session, he was reluctant to allow Jordan to bully him into making claims that he wasn't sure were true or not. Jordan is the epitome of obnoxious and annoying with his whiny sneer...From the Sept lawfare analysis I linked to previously...Regarding the subcommittee grilling...
"Baker makes clear there are a bunch of facts about the interaction that he doesn’t remember all that well—which is hardly surprising, given that it was presumably not a meeting he expected to have to testify about years after the fact. He says, for example, that he doesn’t remember whether Sussmann told him in advance what he was coming over to talk about (p. 99) and that he wasn’t sure whether it was Bill Priestap or Pete Strzok to whom he referred the matter, though he thinks it was Priestap and knows he did it “within minutes” (pp. 99-100)."
Jordan (who put a lot more effort into defending Trump, than he did the wrestlers he coached at OSU) tried to bully Baker into acknowledging that on that specific day he knew that Sussmann worked for the Clinton campaign. But Baker doesn't remember if he knew that at the time of the meeting, or if he found out later and tells that to Jordan...
"At one point (pp. 122-123), Jordan asks specifically, “And was he representing a client when he brought this information to you? Or just out of the goodness of his heart, someone gave it to him and brought it to you?” This leads to the following exchange:
So what Baker said was that he didn't remember, and specifically that he didn't recall Sussmann specifically addressing whether he had a client or not. That's an honest answer about events two years earlier that you viewed as of little consequence at the time and never expected to have to recall minute details about. That is NOT Baker saying that Sussmann told him he didn't have a client...
Now it's 4 yrs after that, after extensive coaching from a Prosecutor desperate to make a case. Now he suddenly unequivocally remembers details which he already said on numerous occasions that he didn't remember?
That's why he had to amend it to 75%, and why his testimony is so weak. Why would you suddenly remember details that you took no note of initially? It doesn't make any sense, and imho it goes directly to the heart to the concept of reasonable doubt.
Ben Wittes who is editor of Lawfare and wrote the analysis is a friend of Baker's. He surmises that Durham is trying to pressure Sussmann into sacrificing others to save himself. But this is the definition of a weak case, and I'd be beyond shocked if 12 individuals all accepted the story that Durham wants them to believe regarding Baker's remarkable memory transformation...
On the Special Counsel’s Weird Prosecution of Michael Sussmann
The indictment of Michael Sussmann is far removed from the supposedly grave FBI misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. It’s also a remarkably weak case.
"I don't remember"..... the Hillary Defense. lmao
The fact Baker's story had changed before under oath makes it obvious he knew exactly why Sussman was there and who he was representing.
Hopefully the jurors aren't as gullible as Cosmic and UncleMark.
"I'm not even interested enough to read anything you post other than when you address a reply to me.."
Well we know that's a lie.
I can't speak for the BOT but I don't think Mark is Gullible. I think he is very intelligent (beyond what he wants to admit), he's more just human and can not allow any, ANY loss for his side. There is no tap out for them, it's to the death.
Some old guy once said "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no Vice."
Trump and his movement are existential threats to our Republic. I make no apology for fighting them tooth and nail in my puny way. We've survived economic setbacks over the years, but I don't know that we can survive the assault on our democracy that will result if they are ever again handed the reins of power.
Latest posts
-
Has anyone asked Moreno about possible reclassification?
- Latest: ButHerEmails
-
-
-
-