BillsFanNC Posted May 16, 2022 Posted May 16, 2022 I expect the swamp to remain extra swampy and do everything in their power to protect one of the own. 1
BillsFanNC Posted May 16, 2022 Author Posted May 16, 2022 Quote Subpoenaed Fusion GPS employee Laura Seago is likely to stay mum during questioning at the criminal trial of Michael Sussmann that starts this week. Her silence will be yet further evidence that the Hillary Clinton campaign financed and seeded the Russia collusion hoax to both the press and U.S. intelligence agencies.
ChiGoose Posted May 16, 2022 Posted May 16, 2022 If it's what you say, I love it. Especially later in the summer 1
Tiberius Posted May 16, 2022 Posted May 16, 2022 Was this the guy who brokered the deal for Trump's hotel in Moscow that was kept secret from the American public during the election? Or was that someone else? 1 1
ChiGoose Posted May 16, 2022 Posted May 16, 2022 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Was this the guy who brokered the deal for Trump's hotel in Moscow that was kept secret from the American public during the election? Or was that someone else? 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. 1
Doc Posted May 16, 2022 Posted May 16, 2022 He had a duty to inform the FBI he was working for Shrill when passing off his lies. 1
ChiGoose Posted May 16, 2022 Posted May 16, 2022 17 minutes ago, Doc said: He had a duty to inform the FBI he was working for Shrill when passing off his lies. 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.
B-Man Posted May 17, 2022 Posted May 17, 2022 Former partner, FBI agent to testify against ex-Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann by Ben Feuerherd & Bruce Golding https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/former-partner-fbi-agent-to-testify-against-ex-clinton-campaign-lawyer-sussmann/
ChiGoose Posted May 18, 2022 Posted May 18, 2022 (edited) 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: Quote Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. 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 Edited May 18, 2022 by ChiGoose 2 1
Westside Posted May 18, 2022 Posted May 18, 2022 Two years of investigation and all Durham could find was Sussman? He’s a small fish. Millions spent for this!? 1
JaCrispy Posted May 18, 2022 Posted May 18, 2022 On 5/16/2022 at 3:59 PM, Tiberius said: Wasn’t the Washington Post one of many mainstream news outlets pushing “The Hoax”? Jeff Bezos is known for being very ideological, with little regard for real journalism...The Post is a shell of its former self, imo... 6 minutes ago, Westside said: Two years of investigation and all Durham could find was Sussman? He’s a small fish. Millions spent for this!? I have thought the same...But I think some of the “bigger fish” are so well insulated from justice, because of their connections...When you get to a certain level, I think people just become bulletproof (or above the law)...and that’s both parties... 1
BillsFanNC Posted May 18, 2022 Author Posted May 18, 2022 Strange that there are STILL to this day "journalists" who believe that the Trump alfa bank story is true when an FBI expert determined it was false within days. We have a corrupt IC and media to the core.
ChiGoose Posted May 18, 2022 Posted May 18, 2022 12 hours ago, Westside said: Two years of investigation and all Durham could find was Sussman? He’s a small fish. Millions spent for this!? 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.
Recommended Posts