ChiGoose

This really seems like we're all jumping to conclusions on alleged specifics of a document that hasn't even been drafted yet. We can spin comments like Johnson's anyway we want but it doesn't mean anything until there is an actual proposal on the table.

There were definitely problems with the Russia investigation but it was certainly not a hoax and was not predicated on the Steele dossier nor Sussman's meeting with the FBI. So it's not surprising that Durham didn't find any vast conspiracy or even big wrongdoing. In fact, if this is all he was able to find, it probably bolsters the investigation's findings. It looks like people are making the Sussman trial into some big referendum on Mueller / the Russia investigation, but it's definitely not that. The investigation was not based on Sussman's tip and the FBI quickly dismissed the information that Sussman provided to them anyway. This is a fairly straightforward §1001 case, though whether or not the jury convict is not yet clear this early on. If Sussman is convicted, that means he should have told the FBI explicitly that he was working on behalf of a client(s). Drawing conclusions beyond that would not be a good idea nor based in any facts on the record.

I read some recaps of the trial today and thought I would try to sum them up here for those who don’t have time to read all the news. Facts of the case: the Clinton campaign engaged Michael Sussman as lawyer during the 2016 presidential election campaign. In September of 2016, Sussman reached out to an FBI contact about information he had about the Trump campaign. Sussman told the FBI that he was doing so not on behalf of any of his clients*. At the meeting, Sussman provided a thumb drive he said contained data that showed that the Russian bank Alfa Bank had a connection to servers belonging to the Trump organization. In the Fall of 2021, Sussman was indicted on one count of violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1001 (a)(2) for not disclosing to the FBI that he was working on behalf of any client when he conveyed those allegations against the Trump campaign. Subsection (a)(2) reads as: This charge has two prongs that Special Counsel Durham must prove to secure a guilty verdict: Sussman knowingly and willfully lied when he said he was not acting on behalf of any client when meeting with the FBI That the lie was material The prosecution gave their opening statements that included the following: Sussman was actually working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and another client when he met with the FBI Sussman’s goal was to create an “October surprise” by having FBI investigations into Trump generating negative headlines about him leading into the 2016 election. Sussman lied because he believed that if the FBI knew he was working for a political campaign, they would find his claims less credible. The defense made the following arguments in their opening: Sussman regularly worked with the FBI and they knew he worked with the Clinton campaign and the DNC The prosecution cannot prove that Sussman lied since only he and FBI lawyer James Baker were in the meeting; neither of them took notes and Baker’s memory is unreliable. In any event, the information provided by Sussman appears to have been quickly debunked by the FBI as not credible. Sources: Indictment (charge is on page 27): https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download 18 U.S. Code § 1001: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/opening-statements-set-in-trial-linked-to-russia-probe/2022/05/17/620d479e-d596-11ec-be17-286164974c54_story.html The Hill: https://thehill.com/regulation/3491229-sussmanns-defense-lawyer-calls-durham-prosecution-an-injustice/ Kansas City Star: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article261511192.html *Sussman had other clients in addition to the Clinton campaign, including a data specialist who is also involved in the case

Am I missing something? These make it sound like countries want to start discussing how to prepare for pandemics in the future but there are basically no specific language on what that means. Seems like they aren't even at the starting line yet...

Is there a link to the proposal document from WHO?

It really does seem like he's trying to find a way out without having to pay the $1 billion penalty.

Anyone else going to the season opener at SoFi stadium? Where's the best tailgating?

There are two main factual issues that will need to be decided by the jury (the finder of fact in trials): Did Sussman lie when he said he was acting on his own out of a true concern of potential crimes? Someone who discovers potential criminality and reports it to the FBI is not necessarily doing it on behalf of their employer Durham alleges that Sussman was actually working at the campaign's behalf to push negative stories about Trump to damage his campaign If Sussman lied, was the lie "material" in that it impacted the decisions that the FBI made? Given the nature of the information provided by Sussman, would the FBI have acted differently or treated it differently had they known that he was working for the Clinton campaign? This is going to hinge on the testimony on the case and who the jury feels is more believable about the two prongs above. To succeed on a §1001 charge, Durham will need to convince the jury both that Sussman lied, and that the lie had a material impact on the FBI's investigation. Sussman will likely make two arguments: that he was a concerned citizen not acting under direction of the campaign, or in the alternative, if he did lie, it was not material to how the FBI would investigate his claim. Ultimately, the penalty should Sussman be convicted is a fine and/or imprisonment of no more than five years. Given the facts that I've seen (and I admit I have not been following this super closely), I would not expect a heavy sentence should Sussman be found guilty. However, any conviction for lying to the FBI would likely end his legal career.

Nah, that's someone else. Sussman was a lawyer for a firm working with the Clinton campaign who reported an alleged connection between the Trump organization and a Russian Bank. He has been charged with one count of lying to the FBI for not disclosing that he was representing the political campaign when he met with the FBI. He told his contact at the FBI that he was coming on his own behalf, not on behalf of any client. An important point of the dispute will be if the jury determines that he was in fact acting on his own to alert the FBI of a potential crime, or (as Special Counsel Durham alleges), this was part of an effort by the Clinton campaign to discredit Trump. Durham alleges that this was a material lie because if the FBI knew he was actually working on behalf of a campaign, they would have acted differently. Ultimately, the information that Sussman provided to the FBI (that servers in Trump Tower were communicating with Alfa Bank) were deemed to be not credible or not true. I'm not even sure they were mentioned in the Mueller report.

If it's what you say, I love it. Especially later in the summer

With the new Tyrod deal, I wouldn't use a 1st round pick on a QB unless I thought they were very likely to be a Super Bowl caliber player. I don't see that with the guys in this draft. We should definitely take a QB, but not in the first round.

The Bills Backers bar here in Chicago that I like to go to for games plays a lot of the old Bills/Buffalo songs/jingles/radio calls during commercial breaks. It's great to hear them, especially the ones that were before my time. I ended up adding a bunch to my phone so I can enjoy them whenever I want.

That was my thought too. Ended up being a roller coaster year: beating teams that were better than us, and losing to teams that were worse than us.

Letting Woods walk was the right call regardless of our cap situation. I liked him enough, but he was overvalued. I also liked Gilmore, but he is only effective in certain schemes. Even if he was going to fit our newest scheme, it was going to be too much money with our cap. In an ideal scenario where we had cap space and a scheme that fit his talents, I would have kept him. Since that wasn't the case, it was right to let him walk.

I think the defense lead the way, but we did outplay them. I think it's still the worst game Rodgers has played in his career. We also swept the NFC North, which was fun for someone living in Chicago. This was the game that made me feel like we were on the threshold of being a playoff caliber team. Whoops.

One of the nice things about the old BBMB was that I joined early enough to get the name "Goose" which I can almost never get on sites. Looking forward to getting involved here. Heads up to newbies, it took a loooong time before my account was validated so I could post. Just keep checking back if you're not able to post, it'll happen eventually.