What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
8,671
Reaction score
13,969
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina

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

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:
sussman-indictment-1.jpg
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:
sussman-indictment-2.jpg

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.
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.
 

Burgermeister

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
1,818
Points
1,918
Pretty sure this is all that will come of it. Low level. Just a gesture to avoid complete ridicule about the wasted time and money. I believe their funding runs out at the end of September and I can't imagine this administration extending the funding. If you see not nothing else happen by the end of this month, it's over.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
23,433
Reaction score
5,501
Points
290

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

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:
sussman-indictment-1.jpg
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:
sussman-indictment-2.jpg

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.
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.

There is a huge problem with this case. There are no notes of the meeting. There is no proof of anything untoward. If Baker and Sussman tell opposite stories then Sussman wins. Durham may tell a story but the question is whether he will have any evidence to back it up. The fact is that the IG has already stated the investigation was based on solid grounds. Flynn clearly lied to the FBI.
 

occupied

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
29,144
Reaction score
9,821
Points
900
As crimes go this is pretty petty. Is killing the messenger the best they can do?
 
OP
Doc7505

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
8,671
Reaction score
13,969
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina
Pretty sure this is all that will come of it. Low level. Just a gesture to avoid complete ridicule about the wasted time and money. I believe their funding runs out at the end of September and I can't imagine this administration extending the funding. If you see not nothing else happen by the end of this month, it's over.

Certainly, the Quisling Media is going all out to bury this.
 

lantern2814

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
6,860
Reaction score
4,872
Points
1,940
There is a huge problem with this case. There are no notes of the meeting. There is no proof of anything untoward. If Baker and Sussman tell opposite stories then Sussman wins. Durham may tell a story but the question is whether he will have any evidence to back it up. The fact is that the IG has already stated the investigation was based on solid grounds. Flynn clearly lied to the FBI.
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.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
124,332
Reaction score
40,800
Points
2,290
So what if Hillary colluded with the Russians
 

Kilroy2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,729
Reaction score
965
Points
140
Yet what does this have to do with Clinton. It has nothing to do with Clinton other than giving right wing another excuse to use her name and rehash the same old same old. Everyone knows Hillary hired the firm. Whether Sussman lied to the FBI is on him. It has nothing to do with Hillary. STILL He is not going to be indicted and the case will be dismissed and the right will go wild. deep state deep state deep state oh my god deep state.

it appears that this whole case is based on notes that Baker made of the interview. So this is hearsay

Sussman said he did not say that so where is the evidence. A handwritten note in shorthand of the conversation. Yet this whole case is based on Baker VS Sussman. There is no collaboration from another person. HE said SHE said. Sorry no conviction

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

conflicting but the bottle line will be materiality . Does it really matter

No case

Yet they will have to go thru all the motion to keep the right from screaming deep state

Well I say let them scream it. The Independent investigation ends on a whimper

The one good lining in this is Biden will not have to waste a pardon on him as did Trump with Flynn.

yet we will hear about this for next 10 years. Conspiracy number 101

FINALLY THE PIE IN YOUR FACE

Baker during the same meeting with Senator was asked whether it would have mattered if Sussmann had told him he was there on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. He said it wouldn’t.

Wow but what can you do. but proceed because the investigation into the origins is going to end with nothing.

The gift that Barr keeps on giving on behalf of his boss
 
OP
Doc7505

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
8,671
Reaction score
13,969
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina
There is a huge problem with this case. There are no notes of the meeting. There is no proof of anything untoward. If Baker and Sussman tell opposite stories then Sussman wins. Durham may tell a story but the question is whether he will have any evidence to back it up. The fact is that the IG has already stated the investigation was based on solid grounds. Flynn clearly lied to the FBI.

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?

**********​
**********​
 
OP
Doc7505

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
8,671
Reaction score
13,969
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top