He learned from the best after seeing how HIllary figured out how to avoid giving the Feds information they askd for.Funny how that works...
Donald Trump swears he has lost four of the cellphones subpoenaed by NY Attorney General Letitia James
In a court filing Friday, Trump swears he can't find four of the personal and business cell phones that James wants for her probe of The Trump Organizationnews.yahoo.com
What to make of the Durham filing?
- Thread starter Courtsensetwo
- Start date
Are you seriously this ****ing stupid?
The FBI knew about it, yet they participated in the 2 1/2 year investigation of something they knew wasn't true.
You really need to question your talking points more.
This thread gets avoided like the plague around here. People still think Trump did it after this has all come out in the open. Man thats some powerful influence the msm has...TELL-A-VISION. Like MK ULTRA Victims.
What a joke. He knew he was a DNC attorney, but he thought he was just representing himself..... Anyone who believes that is lying.
Oh hell no, they don't want to talk about the trial. It's see no evil and hear no evil when it comes to the trial.
Would this rise to the level of "Existential Threat"? Would it be greater than, or equal to mean tweets that place our democracy on life support?
Despite all of you guys posting your lists of grievances, none of what you are posting has anything to do with what I assumed was the theme of this thread. Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI/Baker and those 2 men were the only two people in the room. So the only question to be resolved in this ongoing trial is whether or not the jury is going to find him guilty of lying...
I don't need to rely on "talking points" because the issue in this trial is pretty clearly delineated. The Epoch Times groupie has posted very little which addresses the only question the jury will decide. By contrast I have formed my opinion of how this trial will conclude and presented my positions here based on the analysis I have read from people at lawfare, who are not only practicing attorneys, but also have experience in the role of Prosecuting cases as representatives of the Govt.
When they outline why the case is so weak and set out the evidence, they (imho) make a much more compelling case than whatever conclusions you are desperately trying to draw. Most of what you post has nothing to do with regards to providing evidence as to whether Sussmann is guilty of lying or not. Sussmann ONLY talked to Baker, and since Baker has given conflicting accounts at various times and has said opposite things under oath, I maintain that the average juror is going to have a tough time determining that the Prosecution has met the burden of proof that Sussmann lied.
The tweets from today which indicate Gaynor has also given conflicting testimony, would seem to make an acquittal much more likely because the jury has no reason to just blindly accept this newer version of events. If the case ends in acquittal or mistrial, and Durham decides he wants to pursue perjury charges vs Baker and/or Gaynor, he would be free to explore that option. But again I think that might raise some interesting questions about why both men only gave testimony that suggested a crime had occurred after being pressured by Durham.
Durham KNEW of their previous testimony, including Bakers deposition under oath in sub committee proceedings, yet he chose to try and present this case anyway. He was able to get the indictment because the Grand Jury was likely not aware that Baker had testified to a different scenario earlier, and the GJ procedure doesn't allow for cross-examination. But the actual trial is different and Durham had to know it was a risk. I think he was gambling he could pressure Sussmann to confess, but it seems to have been a desperate gamble and a very weak case.
Your claim that the FBI "knew" is immaterial to whether Sussmann lied or not. And actually claiming the FBI "knew" (if true) would make it even more less likely that Baker asked Sussmann about it. And if he never asked Sussmann (because he already "knew"), then how could Sussmann lie in response to a question that was never asked?
As much as you want it to be, the FBI is NOT on trial here. The question before the jury will be did Sussmann lie to Baker or not. That's it...
And it's hilarious that after a campaign which relied on destroying Clinton's reputation and coining the term "crooked Hillary", Trump had the gall to whine about losing his "reputation". He started that nonsense with the "lock her up" chants, so to whine about the person he personally defamed initially, being involved in his lost "reputation" is pathetically hypocritical. I realize hypocrisy doesn't bother you, but like I said it's as pathetic as Peterson crying about the viciousness of people on twitter, responding to his vicious attack which started everything...
There has been no testimony presented that claimed the FBI knew anything beyond the belief that the Alfa bank server was not a legitimate reason for concern. THAT is a far cry from claiming the FBI knew the entire Russia investigation wasn't true. In fact that testimony has indicated that the FBI decided within a couple of days that the Alfa bank connection wasn't real. Consequently they completely dropped it, and both Operation Cross fire Hurricane and later the Mueller Investigation did not include any aspect of the possible Alfa bank server issue...
When those idiots in that Fox video added their editorial comments like fake and fraudulent, and claimed Robbie Mook agreed with that statement, they are misrepresenting what he said and what he agreed to. If you bother to watch that Fox video and compare it with the printed testimony as presented by the Epoch Times guy, you can easily see that they are lying about what Mook said. I know the inference works fine for you, and their audience as a whole doesn't play close attention. But their deception is glaringly obvious...
Again in this particular thread I'm not arguing for or against your position regarding the Russia Investigation. My posts deal exclusively with the issue of Sussmann's guilt on the indictment he's charged with. Whether your position is wrong or right overall, none of it has anything to do with this charge, which is why it's such a ridiculous ploy by Durham in the first place.
Sussman billed the campaign for 2 thumb drives he's guilty and lied. Whether or not this stacked judge and jury find him guilty or not Durham has done the country a huge favor and debunked every single thing the msm told everyone since 2016.
Also Grassley said a couple days back...
Previously, a former FBI lawyer admitted falsifying evidence submitted to the FISA court in order to get surveillance warrants targeting the Trump campaign.
Grassley said testimony and documents submitted at the Sussmann trial showed FBI managers, including ex-Director James Comey, were "fired up" to pursue what turned out to be false allegations created by the Clinton campaign and delivered to the FBI by Sussmann that Trump had a secret communications channel to the Kremlin back in 2016.
"By the looks of it, this FBI document contains false information," Grassley said.
"I fear these recent developments are just the tip of the iceberg," he added. "The FBI’s exposure to false information and actually using it for investigative purposes wreaks of a political vendetta. A get-Trump-at-all-costs attitude. Whether Sussmann is convicted or not, the evidence introduced by Durham shows serious government misconduct. Special Counsel Durham can’t let government misconduct go unpunished."
It's what many have been saying all along that had access to all this info back in 2016. But they carried on with an impeachment hearing, basement meetings and role playing, a whistleblower which was all a lie. The Mueller investigation which EVERYONE has made clear was a ridiculous sham and waste of taxpayer money.
Isn't it odd that whatever the msm says is exactly the opposite.
Cosmic hold your typing I wont read anything you post. Its worthless as is any comment from anyone that denies the above. You won't get a comment from me because you're wrong and have been hoodwinked this entire time.
Also Grassley said a couple days back...
Previously, a former FBI lawyer admitted falsifying evidence submitted to the FISA court in order to get surveillance warrants targeting the Trump campaign.
Grassley said testimony and documents submitted at the Sussmann trial showed FBI managers, including ex-Director James Comey, were "fired up" to pursue what turned out to be false allegations created by the Clinton campaign and delivered to the FBI by Sussmann that Trump had a secret communications channel to the Kremlin back in 2016.
"By the looks of it, this FBI document contains false information," Grassley said.
"I fear these recent developments are just the tip of the iceberg," he added. "The FBI’s exposure to false information and actually using it for investigative purposes wreaks of a political vendetta. A get-Trump-at-all-costs attitude. Whether Sussmann is convicted or not, the evidence introduced by Durham shows serious government misconduct. Special Counsel Durham can’t let government misconduct go unpunished."
It's what many have been saying all along that had access to all this info back in 2016. But they carried on with an impeachment hearing, basement meetings and role playing, a whistleblower which was all a lie. The Mueller investigation which EVERYONE has made clear was a ridiculous sham and waste of taxpayer money.
Isn't it odd that whatever the msm says is exactly the opposite.
Cosmic hold your typing I wont read anything you post. Its worthless as is any comment from anyone that denies the above. You won't get a comment from me because you're wrong and have been hoodwinked this entire time.
A jury in Washington, D.C., has acquitted lawyer Michael Sussmann on a single charge of lying to the FBI, dealing a blow to the three-year investigation by special counsel John Durham.
www.npr.org
Special Counsel Durham fails first courtroom test in his three-year probe
Michael Sussmann was acquitted of one charge of lying to the FBI in the first verdict rendered during the probe by a special counsel appointed in the Trump administration.
www.npr.org
No doubt the same people who felt that Rittenhouse was a "hero" and praised the jury in his case will whine about the results in this case which was a joke from the start. If you're going to acquit a kid who basically killed two unarmed people because he felt "threatened", you can't reasonably claim the system is rigged when a jury in a far less serious case is supposed to accept that prosecution witnesses who can't even keep their stories consistent is supposed to somehow eliminate "reasonable doubt"...A jury in Washington, D.C., has acquitted lawyer Michael Sussmann on a single charge of lying to the FBI, dealing a blow to the three-year investigation by special counsel John Durham.
Special Counsel Durham fails first courtroom test in his three-year probe
Michael Sussmann was acquitted of one charge of lying to the FBI in the first verdict rendered during the probe by a special counsel appointed in the Trump administration.
Of course the key word is "reasonably"...
Safe to say that 3+ mos after you posted this, the most appropriate response is to characterize Durham's filing as a joke... And the jury agreed...
"Jurors deliberated for six hours, spread over two days, before delivering the unanimous verdict to a courtroom filled with the defendant's family and members of the news media.
The jury forewoman, who did not give her name, told reporters outside the courthouse that "I think we could have spent our time more wisely."
Do jurors ever laugh at a prosecutor's "case"? Wondering if this could possibly be a first?
Last edited:
Total exoneration.A jury in Washington, D.C., has acquitted lawyer Michael Sussmann on a single charge of lying to the FBI, dealing a blow to the three-year investigation by special counsel John Durham.
Special Counsel Durham fails first courtroom test in his three-year probe
Michael Sussmann was acquitted of one charge of lying to the FBI in the first verdict rendered during the probe by a special counsel appointed in the Trump administration.
Yep. And not the fake "Trump kind"...
A jury in Washington, D.C., has acquitted lawyer Michael Sussmann on a single charge of lying to the FBI, dealing a blow to the three-year investigation by special counsel John Durham.
Special Counsel Durham fails first courtroom test in his three-year probe
Michael Sussmann was acquitted of one charge of lying to the FBI in the first verdict rendered during the probe by a special counsel appointed in the Trump administration.
This was a tough case for the prosecutor. It really came down to one FBI agent who did not originally remember the key part of the case, whether Sussman said he was not working for someone. Still, I would not have been surprised by a guilty verdict, juries tend to give credibility to LEOs. At the same point, I'm not surprised by the not guilty. There was an awful lot a jury could hang their hat on a not guilty verdict.
I suspect half the board will find this a total miscarriage, as would the other half if it would have gone the other way. And there is our problem as a nation. We see too much simply as partisans.
Sussman clearly lied to the FBI. But lying does not satisfy the statute. It must be material to an investigation, and it must be the moving cause of trying to adversely affect an FBI investigation. The second two elements had very little evidence. Reasonable doubt was easy.
Funny that most on this board ignored the second and third elements of General Flynn's charge despite my highly partisan best efforts to point that out. Sussman had sympathetic democraic judge, Flynn had a democratic hard ass. Durham was open and above board with Sussman, Weisssman was underhanded and aggressive with Flynn as he threatened Flynn's kids with prosecution if Flynn didn't plead.
In the DC justice swamp, it pays to be a Democrat defendant in a political case. .
As I understand it, his original contact was the one that said Sussman clearly stated he was not there on behalf of a client. But that agent did not make that statement in his original depositions. It came about as a result of questions after the original.
So while I agree, Sussman may have been lying. But if the timeline I have read is accurate, it is also possible the agent's original memory was accurate. I really don't have any way of knowing having not sat in the room and hearing the testimony. Hence why I think it really could have broken either way.
You wrote, "The fact that Sussman is in trial debunks every freaking one of you and the left msm arm that lead us here."
Not any more, guy. Not any more:
Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI, in blow to Durham investigation
Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.
www.cnn.com
You wrote:
"msm media"
"the media"
"media links"
You realize, don't you, that FoxNews is now 100% mainstream -- in fact, FoxNews claims more viewers than either CNN or MSNBC ( but not both added together).
So, do you consider Fox News to be mainstream too?
Perhaps you should go crying to former president Trump. Trump stated he fired Flynn "because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI." Flynn, of course, pled guilty, not once but twice, to a charge of lying to the FBI. His kid, who was also his closest aide, fueled the false and dangerous "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory.
Also, the "sympathetic democraic (sic) judge" in the Sussman trial denied a pretrial defense motion to dismiss based on the materiality issue. The jury decided that issue, not Judge Cooper.
Stop the whining. It was a weak case, and a huge defeat for Durham.
It's amazing to me that many states do not require substitute teachers to have an actual teacher license, though they are still screened in other ways.
I was surprised to find that I know two retirees who supplement their income as substitute teachers. They were too embarrassed about their financial situations to talk about it in the past. The night before, they go on their regular school systems' websites to check the next day's needs for substitute teachers and pick the ones they want. One always picks the same high school's special needs class and said he and the students know and like each other and he feels like he is helping them, even as a substitute. He says he could work fulltime as a substitute teacher.
I had no idea the substitute teacher industry was so developed.
You can't prove a point by just asking a question and assuming, hoping, believing, demanding that all your readers agree with, well, agree with something you didn't actually come out and say plus prove.
The trial testimony indicates the particular FBI personnel knew who Sussmann and his clients were.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
So, as for the disclosure issue, had Sussmann walked into the room completely naked in front of the FBI but didn't say a word, some of these posters would still scream, "He tricked them!! He didn't disclose to them that he was completely naked !!"
Ditto for the Mueller report, which declined to reach a conclusion because Mueller didn't think he had jurisdiction. These same guys rant "Trump was innocent because Mueller didn't find him guilty."
They just aren't smart enough to understand the basics.
He's not going to be able to respond for a while.
The basics are that Sussman lied to the FBI. It didn't matter because the FBI welcomed Sussman material, nurtured it, developed it, and it morphed into Mueller investigation.
The whole thing was a Clinton Campaign sham and she succeeded in weaponizing the FBI in her favor. That part worked. But in the long run it didn't work because she lost. But the seeds grew and material events continued into 2017. This damaged the Trump presidency. Ignorant partisans on this board still believe Mueller didn't indict because of jurisdiction or something and that Trump was indeed Putin's agent.
It's all as phoney as dairy free ice cream.
How is it a blow to the investigation? Danchenko is up next.A jury in Washington, D.C., has acquitted lawyer Michael Sussmann on a single charge of lying to the FBI, dealing a blow to the three-year investigation by special counsel John Durham.
Special Counsel Durham fails first courtroom test in his three-year probe
Michael Sussmann was acquitted of one charge of lying to the FBI in the first verdict rendered during the probe by a special counsel appointed in the Trump administration.
This trial served its purpose - it exposed the Russian Collusion Hoax for what it is - a schemed concocted by the Clinton campaign with the help of foreign assets and accepted and promoted by a willing FBI.
It's exposed the absolute corruption of the Democrat Party.
Besides, as you leftists on the board like to say, just because he wasn't exonerated doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Whether he was found guilty of lying to the FBI about who he was representing when he passed along false information, that's totally irrelevant. It just proved what Trump was saying all along.
Nooooo.... that's not what you said when after the Mueller investigation.
There was more evidence of lying than of Trump colluding with the Russians to influence the election.
At least be consistent.
Here's another reason:
"A few times during the trial, the judge chided prosecutors for asking politically tinged question of witnesses."
Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI, in blow to Durham investigation
Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.
www.cnn.com
Ah yes, that's the judge whose daughter plays on the same soccer team of the defendant's daughter.Here's another reason:
"A few times during the trial, the judge chided prosecutors for asking politically tinged question of witnesses."
Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI, in blow to Durham investigation
Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann was acquitted Tuesday of lying to the FBI, in the first trial of special counsel John Durham's investigation.
No conflict of interest there!
