Sussmann indictment: "Bizarre coda," or harbinger of deep-state exposure?

[Lastamender]

I'm sure you're thinking about all those other times you were told people were criminals without a scrap of proof. Good thing judges of any ideology will burn your ass for lying in their court.

Well, Congress won't do it, or the DOJ won't bring charges against liars. Why is that? Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Mc Cabe, and now Fauci all lied to Congress. When will they be held accountable?

 

[Lastamender]

In a court of law it's perjury.

If something is unfounded why would it be perjury? Perjury has to be proven. You have no proof the allegations are unfounded. You have the word of proven liars.

 

[BluesLegend]

I predict Dem news blackouts and denial.

 

[The Original Tree]

Well, Congress won't do it, or the DOJ won't bring charges against liars. Why is that? Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Mc Cabe, and now Fauci all lied to Congress. When will they be held accountable?

No one will be held accountable Until Judgment Day!

 

[busybee01]

Sussmann indictment: "Bizarre coda," or harbinger of deep-state exposure?​

Sussmann indictment: "Bizarre coda," or harbinger of deep-state exposure?

hotair.com

20 Sep 2021 ~~ By Ed Morrissey

Just what does the indictment of Michael Sussmann portend? MSNBC’s Barbara McQuade called it a “bizarre coda” to John Durham’s investigation, which seems to be the most unlikely bet on this last-minute action by the special counsel. To get there, McQuade tries to shift focus to an early-on debunked part of the overall-debunked Russia-collusion theory, and overlooks Sussmann’s links at the same time:

It is hard to see how the case Durham filed on Thursday against Washington lawyer Michael Sussmann meets Justice Department standards. The indictment alleges that Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel Jim Baker in September 2016 to provide information about connections between a Russian bank and the Trump Organization. The FBI was unable to substantiate any links between Alfa Bank and former President Donald Trump’s businesses, but the charge against Sussman — making false statements to the FBI — doesn’t allege that the substance of the information was false. Instead, Sussman is accused of having misrepresented on whose behalf he was providing it.​

Well, yes, and that misrepresentation turned out to be highly material. Sussmann at the time represented the DNC and had been providing assistance to the Hillary Clinton campaign, a connection that Sussmnan kept hidden from the FBI. Sussmann passed along the rumor that Vladimir Putin-connected Alfa Bank had a server dedicated to Donald Trump’s finances to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, which had the effect of laundering that claim right back into the Steele dossier. He also passed that information to the FBI, without informing agents that he was working for Trump’s opponent at the time, as the indictment alleges:

Furthermore, the indictment alleges the information was indeed false, and that Sussmann hid his own collusion with the Clinton campaign in passing it along, wasting FBI resources:

This isn’t just a game of “telephone” gone wrong, as McQuade later argues. It smells of a deliberate political dirty trick that worked far too well, tying the nation up for two years in a pointless hysteria over supposed Russian collusion. The allegation that Sussmann deliberately lied points to a larger argument that the Clinton campaign and DNC may have cooked the whole thing up — perhaps with the participation of the FBI, or at least a handful of its agents.
Also, the fact that Durham got this indictment under the statute-of-limitations wire tells Andrew McCarthy that more is afoot here than a coda. The indictment itself has so much detail, McCarthy wrote over the weekend, that it makes clear Durham has a broader story to tell in his future actions:
~Snip~
Clearly, more is happening than a mop-up for Durham. It seems highly unlikely that Durham would have bothered with this 18 USC 1001 violation if it only amounted to a “coda.” That doesn’t mean that Durham will be able to secure any more indictments, nor does it mean that Durham can get Sussmann to flip on his former clients, but Durham almost certainly has a bigger story to tell. When he does, will the media exert anywhere near the same energy to highlight it as they put into the Russia-collusion hoax in the first place? You don’t need to stay tuned to know the answer to that question … but stay tuned as well for that anyway.


Comment:
FBI notes appear to suggest that as vice president, Joey Xi Biden played a role in the Democratic Party project to smear Trump as a Russian asset by raising the obscure, disused, 18th century statute the Logan Act as a possible vehicle for prosecuting Michael Flynn for speaking with the Russian ambassador to Washington — even after FBI case agents had cleared Trump's incoming national security adviser of wrongdoing.
Unfortunately, we see the Quisling Media ignoring this and when forced to talk the story will be how (Durham) is lying.
If, big if, anyone is convicted the media will downplay it as a rouge element in the DOJ.

CBS, NBC Disregard Durham Indictment of Lawyer Tied to DNC, Clinton Camp – Cybernistas

Sussman is the appetizer, Hillary is the main course. The side dishes will be Marc Elias and Perkins-Coie. Both are chest deep in this quagmire.

This indictment has major issues. There were no notes taken and no one else was present but Baker and Sussman. Even Baker's recollection of the meeting doesn't square with Durham's indictment. It looks like Durham is running a gigantic bluff.

 

[busybee01]

So according to you, lying to the FBI is okay if you work for Hillary. Take your garbage and get lost. Sussmann lied. Period. Willful blindness on full display here.

You have to have proof that he lied. There are no notes of the meeting. No independent verification of the conversation. Again Baker's recollection does not match what Durham is alleging. You take your garbage and shove it up your ass. You have to have proof and it looks like Durham has no evidence of this.

 

[busybee01]

We all know that a Grand Jury can indict a "ham sandwich" but up till now Durham has been very careful and slow in what he does... I'm sure he has enough evidence to go to trial.
During closed sessions under oath James Baker named Sussman in the conspiracy.
The interesting point is that Michael Sussman has resigned from Perkins-Coie... One wonders why?

Durham's indictment of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann offers hope that bigger fish may be reeled in

I am cautiously optimistic over the indictment handed down yesterday, accusing attorney Michael Sussman, then of Perkins Coie, representing the Hillary Clinton campaign, of lying to the FBI. It has been very easy to despair that anything w...

www.americanthinker.com

**********​

Baker Testimony Reveals Perkins Coie Lawyer Provided FBI With...

This article is part of my ongoing series at The Epoch Times. newer post older post

themarketswork.com

**********​

Michael Sussmann Resigns From Perkins Coie Amid Federal Indictment | National Law Journal

After the federal indictment on Thursday, Sussman offered his resignation to the firm. They accepted.

www.law.com

"Sussman, the former Perkins Coie lawyer accused of falsely telling FBI General Counsel James Baker in 2016 that he wasn’t representing a client when he brought in dirt on a mysterious Trump Organization server, wants the trial in early May 2022. Durham, whom the far right hailed as its very own Robert Mueller when he appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr, is hoping for the end of July.

Durham’s rationale is that the government can’t possibly fulfill its discovery obligations on such a short timeline. Sussman argues that this is a piddly little false statement charge, and anyway the government is already taking advantage of the long runway to delay disclosing Brady material. As evidence of this, he enters as exhibits two recent disclosures which directly undercut the government’s allegation that Sussman explicitly denied that he went to the FBI on behalf of a client, either the Clinton campaign or the DNC.

Baker insists that he had no idea the Perkins Coie lawyer represented Democratic clients — in which case, he is probably the only lawyer in DC who hasn’t made that connection. Indeed, the only record of the conversation is in notes taken by Baker’s deputy Bill Priestap when his boss called to report on the one-on-one meeting and hand the problem off. The notes, which are probably hearsay anyway, read: “said not doing this for any client,” and immediately after “Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.”

Baker’s public testimony on the event has been totally inconsistent, and, as national security blogger Marcy Wheeler points out, there were at least two occurrences on the public record where Baker testified that Sussman had never denied that he was there on behalf of a client.



In his scheduling motion filed Monday, Sussman reveals two additional instances, which were only recently disclosed by prosecutors, in which Baker contradicted the version of events put forth in the indictment. In one, “Baker said that Sussmann did not specify that he was representing a client regarding the matter, nor did Baker ask him if he was representing a client.” And in the other, Baker described Sussman as bringing him information from “some number of people that were his clients.”

Sussman Trial Must Be Delayed, John Durham Says, Because He's Really Bad At Discovery - Above the Law

Cough it up.

abovethelaw.com

Clearly he does not have enough evidence to go to trial If he did then he would not want to delay it until the end of July. Again there are no independent verification of what was said and Baker's recollection has been inconsistent.

 

[lantern2814]

You have to have proof that he lied. There are no notes of the meeting. No independent verification of the conversation. Again Baker's recollection does not match what Durham is alleging. You take your garbage and shove it up your ass. You have to have proof and it looks like Durham has no evidence of this.

No, shove your fantasy right back up your ass you low education liar. So somebody claims Durham is lying and like the gullible sheep you are you accept it. Hit the bricks loser.

 

[busybee01]

No, shove your fantasy right back up your ass you low education liar. So somebody claims Durham is lying and like the gullible sheep you are you accept it. Hit the bricks loser.

You have no education Nazi pig. Why does Durham want a later trial date?

 

[Chillicothe]

Just what does the indictment of Michael Sussmann portend?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, perhaps tonight's episode of PBS Newshour can inform....to a degree....on that rhetorical question.

Here:

New details on 2016 Russia probe prompt flawed allegations of espionage

A filing last week from the special counsel investigating the origins of the Russia probe has ignited a misleading media firestorm on the right that Hillary Clinton's campaign was guilty of illegally spying on Donald Trump. In a column this week, Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Charlie Savage...

www.pbs.org

 

[lantern2814]

You have no education Nazi pig. Why does Durham want a later trial date?

Poor little bitch. Why did Mule-er keep begging for court dates to be delayed time after time? Durham has you shitting your diaper. All because your whole Russia Collusion hoax just got torn down.

 

[Lesh]

This indictment has major issues. There were no notes taken and no one else was present but Baker and Sussman. Even Baker's recollection of the meeting doesn't square with Durham's indictment. It looks like Durham is running a gigantic bluff.

in 2018 Baker in a meeting with Senators on the record, Baker said he did not recall if Sussman said that.

During closed sessions under oath James Baker named Sussman in the conspiracy.

Sussman's lawyers are saying that Durham pressured Baker into changing his story. That puts the "lying to the FBI" claim (the only crime being charged here) in question...to be kind

 

[berg80]

This article is an entertaining take down of the Sussmann canard that has "the Trump crowd rubbing their nipples."

The Alfa Bank Hoax Hoax​

MAGAs once again think they have proof Hillary did the Russia scandal—and once again they are full of shit.

Whether there was anything nefarious going on between Alfa and Trump remains a bit of a mystery. The FBI eventually closed the book on this lead—more on this a moment—resulting in a presumption that any suggestion of impropriety was false. But a satisfactory explanation for the DNS pings has never really been provided. If you want to nerd out on the various possibilities ranging from “random coincidence” to “there’s something fishy here,” the New Yorker did a deep dive on the available evidence back in 2018.

The part of Sussmann’s trial that has the Trump crowd rubbing their nipples is testimony from Clinton 2016 campaign manager Robby Mook in which he revealed that the candidate was briefed on the potentially dubious Alfa Bank accusations and was fine with the campaign’s decision to share the information with reporters. (Point of fact: Many in the Trump orbit have stated that Clinton approved the Alfa Bank oppo’s dissemination, but Mook testified that he told her only after the campaign had shared it with a reporter.)

This rather mundane bit of opposition-research dissemination was treated as a bombshell in the conservative press, where it has been presented as the long-yearned-for evidence that when it comes to Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, it was Hillary who perpetrated a scheme on poor innocent Donny Trump, not the other way around.

The Alfa Bank Hoax Hoax​

MAGAs once again think they have proof Hillary did the Russia scandal—and once again they are full of shit.

www.thebulwark.com