Discussion:
Legal Analyst on Sussman indictment
Add Reply
ScottW
2021-09-21 16:26:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It's a foundation of a wide spread criminal conspiracy case that could go from Hillary to Obama.
All depends now on proof of who knew what when they took action.

Oddly, Brennan's reported criminal referral to DoJ could prove key in showing everyone in DoJ knew it was all bs...but pushed it anyway.

The ones with a get out of jail free card? Pelisi, Schumer, Pencil neck etc.
Congress has long granted themselves a license to lie within those hollow halls.

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-21 18:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
It's a foundation of a wide spread criminal conspiracy case that
could go from Hillary to Obama. All depends now on proof of who knew
what when they took action.
Oddly, Brennan's reported criminal referral to DoJ could prove key in
showing everyone in DoJ knew it was all bs...but pushed it anyway.
The ones with a get out of jail free card? Pelisi, Schumer, Pencil
neck etc. Congress has long granted themselves a license to lie
within those hollow halls.
That would be odd. Criminalizing oppo research seems problematic.

Another legal analyst on the Sussmann indictment:

The indictment is, in other words, far removed from the grave FBI
misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. Very far removed. In fact, it
doesn’t describe FBI malfeasance against Trump at all, but portrays the
FBI as the victim of agitprop brought to it by outside political
operatives. It describes the FBI as diligently running down the leads it
had been fed by these operatives and then, well, dropping the matter
when it learned they had no merit. The misconduct it portrays is an
alleged lie by Sussmann that is, at best, wholly peripheral to the
substance of the allegations Durham was supposedly peddling.

Even taken on its own terms, the document is one of the very weakest
federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years
covering federal investigations and prosecutions. It depends in its
entirety on the testimony of a single witness who is on the record,
under oath, saying something rather different from what the indictment
alleges. The indictment itself, as I’ll explain, also contains a number
of facts that tend to undercut its central allegation.
George M. Middius
2021-09-21 19:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Pencil neck etc.
wait a tick... Do you have a new, unnamed bone stuck in your doggie craw?
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Congress has long granted themselves a license to lie
within those hollow halls.
Which halls are hollow? Halls are supposed to be empty, at least when
they're not full. Babble much, mutt?
Post by MiNe109
That would be odd. Criminalizing oppo research seems problematic.
Have you foresworn de-gibberizing Witless's word salad?
MiNe109
2021-09-21 20:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George M. Middius
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Pencil neck etc.
wait a tick... Do you have a new, unnamed bone stuck in your doggie craw?
Maybe he means the hyoid, but that's more u-shaped.
Post by George M. Middius
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
Congress has long granted themselves a license to lie
within those hollow halls.
Which halls are hollow? Halls are supposed to be empty, at least when
they're not full. Babble much, mutt?
Which halls aren't hollow?
Post by George M. Middius
Post by MiNe109
That would be odd. Criminalizing oppo research seems problematic.
Have you foresworn de-gibberizing Witless's word salad?
I am mixing a couple of things together. Durham essentially gave oppo to
the FBI that wasn't false as such but was definitely meant to make
trouble for Trump.

The Brennan part is deeper into the right-wing conspiracy mind. His was
the report that alerted Obama's WH of Putin's interest in the election.
Durham was investigating, but Barr exonerated him on his way out in an
interview with Kim Strassel by affirming that he didn't “see any sign of
improper CIA activity” or see “foreign government activity before July
2016. The CIA stayed in its lane.”

So Scott is referring to an indictment that didn't happen to claim
significance for one that doesn't say what he thinks.
ScottW
2021-09-21 20:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
It's a foundation of a wide spread criminal conspiracy case that
could go from Hillary to Obama. All depends now on proof of who knew
what when they took action.
Oddly, Brennan's reported criminal referral to DoJ could prove key in
showing everyone in DoJ knew it was all bs...but pushed it anyway.
The ones with a get out of jail free card? Pelisi, Schumer, Pencil
neck etc. Congress has long granted themselves a license to lie
within those hollow halls.
That would be odd. Criminalizing oppo research seems problematic.
It wasn't oppo research. And that's not the crime. They crossed the line when they decided
to push this BS into DoJ.
Post by MiNe109
The indictment is, in other words, far removed from the grave FBI
misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. Very far removed. In fact, it
doesn’t describe FBI malfeasance against Trump at all, but portrays the
FBI as the victim of agitprop brought to it by outside political
operatives.
Which is a crime by the "operatives".

Then the FBI decided they'd play too and knowingly used the BS to
get warrants etc. Ultimately the whole thing was parlayed into a Special Counsel and Mueller.
Post by MiNe109
It describes the FBI as diligently running down the leads it
had been fed by these operatives
Yup....
Post by MiNe109
and then, well, dropping the matter
when it learned they had no merit.
Well.... they may have dropped the cyber BS with Alpha bank
but they sure didn't drop the rest of it.
Clinton fed the FBI BS on many levels through many sources. This is just one that is documented in an indictment.
Post by MiNe109
The misconduct it portrays is an
alleged lie by Sussmann that is, at best, wholly peripheral to the
substance of the allegations Durham was supposedly peddling.
I have no idea how you're head can be so buried to be oblivious to this.
But it's no surprise....you've been the devoted little democrat forever now.
No matter what....
Biden could drone little kids to death just to look tough and you'd still back him....
cuz he did and you do.
Post by MiNe109
Even taken on its own terms, the document is one of the very weakest
federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years
covering federal investigations and prosecutions. It depends in its
entirety on the testimony of a single witness who is on the record,
under oath, saying something rather different from what the indictment
alleges.
Now here's the usual BS dem op moron who you buy hook line and sinker
implying the whole case is laid out in the indictment. They never do that.
They do just enough to indict...and no more. Stop being a moronic fucktard.
Post by MiNe109
The indictment itself, as I’ll explain, also contains a number
of facts that tend to undercut its central allegation.
I guess you didn't like the explanation.....

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-22 14:08:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
It's a foundation of a wide spread criminal conspiracy case that
could go from Hillary to Obama. All depends now on proof of who
knew what when they took action.
Oddly, Brennan's reported criminal referral to DoJ could prove
key in showing everyone in DoJ knew it was all bs...but pushed it
anyway.
The ones with a get out of jail free card? Pelisi, Schumer,
Pencil neck etc. Congress has long granted themselves a license
to lie within those hollow halls.
That would be odd. Criminalizing oppo research seems problematic.
It wasn't oppo research. And that's not the crime. They crossed the
line when they decided to push this BS into DoJ.
It (the Alpha Bank computer story) was exactly oppo research. Tipping
the FBI is also not a crime, as you might deduce because no one was
charged for it.
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
The indictment is, in other words, far removed from the grave FBI
misconduct Durham was supposed to reveal. Very far removed. In
fact, it doesn’t describe FBI malfeasance against Trump at all, but
portrays the FBI as the victim of agitprop brought to it by outside
political operatives.
Which is a crime by the "operatives".
No, it isn't.
Post by ScottW
Then the FBI decided they'd play too and knowingly used the BS to get
warrants etc. Ultimately the whole thing was parlayed into a Special
Counsel and Mueller.
Ah, you're mixing Brennan and Sussmann together.
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
It describes the FBI as diligently running down the leads it had
been fed by these operatives
Yup....
Post by MiNe109
and then, well, dropping the matter when it learned they had no
merit.
Well.... they may have dropped the cyber BS with Alpha bank but they
sure didn't drop the rest of it. Clinton fed the FBI BS on many
levels through many sources. This is just one that is documented in
an indictment.
Barr says there was no problem, Durham found no important problems. The
Brennan report predates the Alpha Bank matter.
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
The misconduct it portrays is an alleged lie by Sussmann that is,
at best, wholly peripheral to the substance of the allegations
Durham was supposedly peddling.
I have no idea how you're head can be so buried to be oblivious to
this. But it's no surprise....you've been the devoted little democrat
forever now. No matter what.... Biden could drone little kids to
death just to look tough and you'd still back him.... cuz he did and
you do.
The analyst simply points out that an investigation of the FBI instead
found a false statement to the FBI.

At greater length:

[T]his material, which constitutes the majority of the indictment, is
wholly non-germane to Sussman’s alleged lie. Sussman, after all, is not
accused of lying about the substance of the Alfa Bank allegations, the
manner in which the information was obtained or researched, or the role
he played in preparing any of it. He is accused of lying only about one
thing: who his clients were when he approached the FBI with the material
in September 2017.

In other words, not only has Durham gone from investigating whether the
FBI ran a secret spying operation against the Trump campaign to alleging
that it was the victim of crime, he has used this indictment to tell a
mostly-unrelated tale about opposition research by the Clinton campaign
and its supporters and lawyers.

End quote.
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Even taken on its own terms, the document is one of the very
weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than
25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions. It
depends in its entirety on the testimony of a single witness who is
on the record, under oath, saying something rather different from
what the indictment alleges.
Now here's the usual BS dem op moron who you buy hook line and
sinker implying the whole case is laid out in the indictment. They
never do that. They do just enough to indict...and no more. Stop
being a moronic fucktard.
He's entitled to his opinion, which is about the indictment, not some
imaginary future prosecution.
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
The indictment itself, as I’ll explain, also contains a number of
facts that tend to undercut its central allegation.
I guess you didn't like the explanation.....
I didn't bring it up to litigate the matter, just to show that other
legal analysts have different takes than the one you quoted.

tl/dr: the FBI General Counsel knew Sussmann well enough to know he
worked for political organizations and didn't recall exactly what
Sussmann said.

Long version:

In that deposition [before Congress], Baker makes clear that he had a
“personal relationship” with Sussmann, on the basis of which he took a
meeting with him and accepted the information, about which he was “quite
concerned” and which he immediately gave to investigators.

The problem for Durham is that in this deposition, Baker repeatedly
disclaims specific memory of whether Sussmann identified his clients.
Baker’s congressional deposition takes place over two separate days, a
couple of weeks apart, and the matter comes up a few times. He is quite
consistent that he does not remember Sussmann mentioning his clients,
but he also does not state that Sussmann said he had no client
interests—and Baker repeatedly suggests his own memory on the subject
may be imperfect.

Baker actually 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...

Baker also does not clearly disclaim knowing that Sussmann had a
professional relationship with the DNC and the Clinton campaign...

In this deposition, after all, Baker does not testify that Sussmann had
told him he was not representing any client, as the indictment alleges
on page 18. Rather, he testified that he did not recall Sussmann
mentioning being there on behalf of any client, though he says he may
have been generically aware of Sussmann’s relationship with the DNC on
cyber matters. If, conversely, Baker gave grand jury testimony
significantly more confident than this congressional testimony about
Sussmann’s disclaiming any client representation, Sussmann’s lawyers
will have a field day on cross-examination exposing the differences and
attacking the credibility of Baker’s testimony at trial. Either way, it
won’t be good for Durham’s case.
ScottW
2021-09-22 16:33:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Post by ScottW
It's a foundation of a wide spread criminal conspiracy case that
could go from Hillary to Obama. All depends now on proof of who
knew what when they took action.
Oddly, Brennan's reported criminal referral to DoJ could prove
key in showing everyone in DoJ knew it was all bs...but pushed it
anyway.
The ones with a get out of jail free card? Pelisi, Schumer,
Pencil neck etc. Congress has long granted themselves a license
to lie within those hollow halls.
That would be odd. Criminalizing oppo research seems problematic.
It wasn't oppo research. And that's not the crime. They crossed the
line when they decided to push this BS into DoJ.
It (the Alpha Bank computer story) was exactly oppo research. Tipping
the FBI is also not a crime, as you might deduce because no one was
charged for it.
LoL. They lied about not being paid to do nothing.
That's Stephens story and he's stuck with it.

ScottW
MiNe109
2021-09-22 17:09:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ScottW
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Criminalizing oppo research seems problematic.
It wasn't oppo research. And that's not the crime. They crossed the
line when they decided to push this BS into DoJ.
It (the Alpha Bank computer story) was exactly oppo research. Tipping
the FBI is also not a crime, as you might deduce because no one was
charged for it.
LoL. They lied about not being paid to do nothing.
Who'd they lie to? It's not illegal to share paid work with the FBI. The
FBI will also accept tips from anonymous people and from real criminals.

It is illegal to make false statements, which is the crime charged,
although a well-known political operative failing to disclose his
clients is rather weak as crimes go, especially when the investigation
came to nothing.
Post by ScottW
That's Stephens story and he's stuck with it.
With that double negative? Doesn't sound like me.
Art Sackman
2021-09-22 19:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Post by MiNe109
Criminalizing oppo research seems problematic.
It wasn't oppo research. And that's not the crime. They crossed the
line when they decided to push this BS into DoJ.
It (the Alpha Bank computer story) was exactly oppo research. Tipping
the FBI is also not a crime, as you might deduce because no one was
charged for it.
LoL. They lied about not being paid to do nothing.
Who'd they lie to? It's not illegal to share paid work with the FBI. The
FBI will also accept tips from anonymous people and from real criminals.
It is illegal to make false statements, which is the crime charged,
although a well-known political operative failing to disclose his
clients is rather weak as crimes go, especially when the investigation
came to nothing.
That's Stephens story and he's stuck with it.
With that double negative? Doesn't sound like me.
It doesn't not sound like you

Loading...