Courtroom Showdown
The long awaited trial of former Clinton lawyer & operative Michael Sussman begins today. It will be a major test for the investigation conducted by Special Counsel John Durham. The case involves a Sept. 19, 2016, meeting in which Sussman gave then-FBI General Counsel James Baker supposedly damning information between a “secret” server operated by the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank. It sparked an FBI investigation that later determined that the only thing the Trump organization and Alfa Bank exchanged was marketing emails. Sussmann allegedly told Baker that he wasn’t sharing internet data about Trump on behalf of a client, when in fact he was working for the Clinton campaign. After trying to get the case tossed out, a Federal Judge (A Barack Obama appointed Judge) ruled that Sussman must make his case to a jury.
Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Sussman remains defiant. A true Trump hating ideologue, who believed that the end justifies the means, he will make his case in court (a DC Court). If convicted he faces a possible sentence of 5 years in prison. The case must be very narrowly micromanaged by Durham. Certain Fusion GPS e-mails, now in John Durham's possession cannot be used, nor can Hillary Clinton be somehow dragged in. Those are very unique ground rules. Ah, the Deep State is alive and well!
The Washington Post describes it thus:
"The trial of Michael Sussmann centers on the narrow legal question of whether he lied when he claimed — less than two months before the 2016 election — that no client had spurred him to bring the tip to authorities, and whether that information was relevant to how FBI agents investigated the matter."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/05/12/sussmann-trial-fbi-trump-clinton/
Thus far, a former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith has pleaded guilty to falsifying records submitted to the federal surveillance court. In November, Durham indicted Igor Danchenko with lying to the FBI about his contributions to the Steele dossier. His case is pending.
Jury selection begins today.
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
"A slew of current and former FBI officials are slated to take the stand in a trial set to begin Monday of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann , offering testimony that could lay bare the FBI ’s eagerness to seize on unverified anti- Trump political dirt."
And how many will roll over on other "officials" so that their hoax would be believed.
We can only hope.
The big question is can we expect a fair judgement from a DC jury?
I doubt it. This is going to be a political circus.
I believe that is why Barr decided not to prosecute McCabe. It can't be close in TDS country.
With the political circus it's almost a given that information would be leaked and witness tampering at some level will take place. I don't think it will be due to TDS (can't completely rule that out) but because of how close it is to the Democrats and Clinton.
Maybe we'll finally get some justice.
I am kind of surprised that hasn't happened yet.
The federal government is loaded with them.
... and by the time one gets to the 4th paragraph, "slew" which means many is morphed into a "handful".
I see. Nothing to see there.
BTW: The FBI has 10 agents testifying in the Durham Vs Sussman case. 5 each for the prosecution and defense.
In this case, using 'slew' is clickbait writing and as someone who professes to be well read, you should be well aware of this.
Some might consider 10 agents a slew.
Is the use of the word the topic?
To the gullible maybe. That could send them off the deep end and into another bout of fake outrage meanwhile it could be 10.
How language is either used or misused in this day of inflammatory writing? Yes indeed!
I guess if one chooses to miss the bigger picture..........
Do I need to quote Lincoln?
I have no earthly idea what you feel the need to do, nor is it very important to me.
Knock yourself out.
Did you follow Brad when he pitched in Toronto?
Montrealers don't follow anything that happens in Toronto.
Ah, isolationists!
“…Durham…”
… just another synonym for partisanship, hence failure, and when all else is lost, desperation..
LoL.
“Is the use of the word the topic?”
If you could not defer to the use of a word in any discussion, the slight being real or imagined, you would have absolutely nothing to contribute…which is the case with every. single. post.
Please do continue and prove the point.
Are you sure you understood my question?
He was just distracting from the article's content because he took offense over a word which is arguably being used correctly.
I wasn't aware that grammar had much to do with any of it--perhaps you can relate how grammar has a thing to do with it.
Nah, Toronto is nothing more than a vast sprawling suburb full of uninteresting bars and even less interesting Presbyterians.
“I wasn't aware…”
…duh.
Interesting,
I found Roman Catholics to be the largest denomination of Christians there.
Maybe that is hard to find when you are an isolationist..
Well, THAT certainly is one silly explanation for what grammar has to do with it.
Congrats, I guess?
And yet, it wasn't me that started any conversation about the use of the word "slew".
And I wasn't the one distracting from the content of the story by focusing on the word that brings nothing to the discussion.
Seems your comment should have been directed at the person deferring.
“…what grammar has to do with it.”
Point proven, tex.
Pick a word, any word, and any point you think you have made is lost in the innuendo…
…please continue to prove the fact.
“…slew…”
Point proven, tex.
Pick a word, any word, and any point you think you have made is lost in the innuendo…
…please continue to prove the fact.
No need to prove anything. The proof is in his own post. Sorry you can't see that.
I asked you to relate the word in the article and his detracting by bitching about the word.
You have failed miserably,
Presbyterians who are looking to get laid call themselves Catholics.
Must be a uniquely Canadian thingy.
Is being Catholic such a turn on for Canadians?
Ah, more projection
It is when that word does not meet their given agenda.
This just in:
"U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Columbia, who is presiding over the Sussmann case which begins tomorrow, is married to lawyer Amy Jeffress, who represented FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
Cooper, an Obama-appointee, and Jeffress, a former top aide to Attorney General Eric Holder, are well connected in the Democrat party. Merrick Garland even presided over their 1999 wedding.
John Durham did not ask Judge Cooper to recuse himself."
Why not, Judge Cooper said he would if asked?
And take away the "he should have recused himself" defense after it's over..................IF needed
Maybe people should set their hair on fire like they did with Justice Thomas and his wife.
Far more of a power couple than Justice Thomas and his wife.
I can't find anywhere that Thomas' wife has a law degree- nor has she represented any high powered Republicans in court. Nor is she well connected in the court- outside of her husband.
Judge Cooper reeks of Democrat insider.
And that's why I'm expecting a lot of leaks and witness tampering.
A lot of leaks? Is this going to be a closed case where the public cannot see?
Even if it was court reporters tell what happened that day.
Leaks...Hahaha
B.T.W. I did have to laugh at the site's commentators accusing Durham of being a 'sellout'.
This just in:
A revelation from Sept 2021.
This just in:
Newstalkers lefties are among the very few who still cling to the Russia Hoax!
"According to the indictment, Mr. Sussmann went to Mr. Baker’s office and spun the tale that he was acting as a “good citizen,” not as a lawyer for Donald Trump ’s election opponents, delivering information potentially damaging to Mr. Trump. FBI special agents are trained to interview witnesses and suspects and spend most of their working careers doing so. An agent would have keyed in on Mr. Sussmann’s motivation and memorialized the interview on an FD-302 interview-report form, the proper way to record what would likely become evidence.
What makes Mr. Baker’s lack of action even more egregious is that he was told by Mr. Sussmann a day in advance, by text, that he wanted the visit so he could bring sensitive information to the FBI’s attention. According to an April 4, 2022, court filing by Mr. Durham, Mr. Sussmann also specifically said, in a Sept. 18, 2016, text to Mr. Baker, that he was “coming on my own—not on behalf of a client.” This is the essence of his alleged lie.
Mr. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty. What will be his defense? If it were simply his word against Mr. Baker’s, with only the two of them in the room, Mr. Sussmann could simply deny the alleged lie. Once Mr. Durham’s investigation recovered Mr. Sussmann’s text, sent the day before the meeting, that avenue of defense was closed off."