The Michael Sussman Trial: Special Counsel Durham's Probe Into The Origins of Russia Collusion Hoax.

[Westside]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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 totally disagree. The so called Russian collusion hoax was real. Bought and paid for by the clinton campaign and the dnc. 
The fact that the fbi went along with this hoax is very alarming. 

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, Westside said:

I totally disagree. The so called Russian collusion hoax was real. Bought and paid for by the clinton campaign and the dnc. 
The fact that the fbi went along with this hoax is very alarming. 

 

What about it was a hoax? I've read the Mueller report and it is very thorough.

 

I definitely think the media coverage was generally very poor, but the media is generally bad at covering politics and incredibly bad at covering legal issues. So a legal investigation into a political campaign spawned a lot of poor quality news stories.

 

That being said, there were something like 30 indictments arising out of that investigation. Those aren't a hoax.

[Westside]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

What about it was a hoax? I've read the Mueller report and it is very thorough.

 

I definitely think the media coverage was generally very poor, but the media is generally bad at covering politics and incredibly bad at covering legal issues. So a legal investigation into a political campaign spawned a lot of poor quality news stories.

 

That being said, there were something like 30 indictments arising out of that investigation. Those aren't a hoax.

How many convictions? Where exactly in the Mueller report does it show Russian collusion? They impeached him twice, never convicted, yet people like you insist there was collusion? Not one single shred of evidence has been found. If there was collusion, you know very well he would be in prison right now. 
I still can’t believe the amount of TDS still around today.

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Westside said:

How many convictions? Where exactly in the Mueller report does it show Russian collusion? They impeached him twice, never convicted, yet people like you insist there was collusion? Not one single shred of evidence has been found. If there was collusion, you know very well he would be in prison right now. 
I still can’t believe the amount of TDS still around today.

 

Here's an article from two years ago outlining who was indicted and who plead guilty or was convicted: https://www.axios.com/2019/11/15/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations

 

Collusion is not a legal term and it's a big reason why the media coverage on this was so bad. Mueller specifically noted in the report on page 2:

Quote

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office [of the Special Counsel] recognized that the word "collud[e]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on a conspiracy as defined in federal law.

 

The report then goes on to document a myriad of interactions between individuals in the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, including sharing internal polling data with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. However, because conspiracy requires an agreement between parties, Mueller was not able to state affirmatively that there was a conspiracy. Coordinating and working with Russian agents towards a shared goal is not enough if you do not have an actual agreement between the parties.

 

That being said, the report also detailed numerous instances that meet or may meet the standards of obstruction of justice. In setting the stage for that part of the report (Volume II), Mueller states that he was not making a prosecutorial judgement because the sitting president could not be indicted under guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Stating that the president committed a crime without indicting the president would not allow him a chance to clear his name through a trial. Therefore, Mueller would not make a decision on indictment.

 

However, he did note the following:

Quote

...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

 

Volume II then details out 10 instances where the president may have committed obstruction of justice, including several instances in which all prongs of obstruction are strongly supported by the evidence. 

 

This is a helpful chart for understanding the obstruction of justice evidence in the report: https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 

In terms of impeachment? That's a political process. It was highly unlikely, no matter the facts, that any president would be removed on impeachment in our currently polarized time if it required a significant number of votes from their own party. Also, one must never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to fumble every opportunity it is handed.

[BillsFanNC]

Durham has labeled this a joint venture conspiracy in his filings. Sussman is just the beginning.

 

Kash Patel, a former US prosecutor,  gives a great outline of what Durham is up to here.

 

 

[ChiGoose]

25 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Durham has labeled this a joint venture conspiracy in his filings. Sussman is just the beginning.

 

Kash Patel, a former US prosecutor,  gives a great outline of what Durham is up to here.

 

 

 

I am skeptical that it ends up going that far. The case against Sussman is far from a slam dunk and conviction is certainly not assured.

 

And even if Sussman is convicted on a single charge of lying to the FBI, would the sentence be so high that he would roll over (assuming there really is some big conspiracy here)?

 

It's definitely not impossible, but at the current stage, it seems fairly improbable to me.

[Westside]

48 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I am skeptical that it ends up going that far. The case against Sussman is far from a slam dunk and conviction is certainly not assured.

 

And even if Sussman is convicted on a single charge of lying to the FBI, would the sentence be so high that he would roll over (assuming there really is some big conspiracy here)?

 

It's definitely not impossible, but at the current stage, it seems fairly improbable to me.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is not any amount of evidence that would change your mind. So, let’s agree to disagree.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

Here's an article from two years ago outlining who was indicted and who plead guilty or was convicted: https://www.axios.com/2019/11/15/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations

 

Collusion is not a legal term and it's a big reason why the media coverage on this was so bad. Mueller specifically noted in the report on page 2:

 

The report then goes on to document a myriad of interactions between individuals in the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, including sharing internal polling data with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. However, because conspiracy requires an agreement between parties, Mueller was not able to state affirmatively that there was a conspiracy. Coordinating and working with Russian agents towards a shared goal is not enough if you do not have an actual agreement between the parties.

 

That being said, the report also detailed numerous instances that meet or may meet the standards of obstruction of justice. In setting the stage for that part of the report (Volume II), Mueller states that he was not making a prosecutorial judgement because the sitting president could not be indicted under guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Stating that the president committed a crime without indicting the president would not allow him a chance to clear his name through a trial. Therefore, Mueller would not make a decision on indictment.

 

However, he did note the following:

 

Volume II then details out 10 instances where the president may have committed obstruction of justice, including several instances in which all prongs of obstruction are strongly supported by the evidence. 

 

This is a helpful chart for understanding the obstruction of justice evidence in the report: https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 

In terms of impeachment? That's a political process. It was highly unlikely, no matter the facts, that any president would be removed on impeachment in our currently polarized time if it required a significant number of votes from their own party. Also, one must never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to fumble every opportunity it is handed.

Would you agree that a President who colluded with a foreign entity and against whom there was sufficient evidence would be tried after he left office?  Much less convicted?

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

Would you agree that a President who colluded with a foreign entity and against whom there was sufficient evidence would be tried after he left office?  Much less convicted?

 

EDIT: I answered this based on the president committing a crime. As stated in the Mueller Report "collusion" isn't actually a crime as laid out in a statute.

 

I would agree that they probably should be prosecuted but I'm not confident that they definitely would be. 

 

I don't think we've ever had a former president criminally prosecuted before. The closest we came was Nixon but that became impossible when Ford pardoned him. Prosecuting a president is far trickier than your average citizen because they have additional protections (executive privilege, duties as president, etc.) that would need to be overcome in the trial. It also will immediately be politicized, potentially putting a stain on the office leading the prosecution.

 

So even if an investigative body has a strong case, they may be reluctant to bring it unless they are 100% certain they could secure a guilty verdict. And even then, they would have to weigh that against political concerns.

 

I don't love it, I think there is plenty enough evidence to indict Trump on obstruction of justice as well as breaking Georgia election law, but I'm not confident that will actually happen.

 

Bottom line for prosecutors: you come at the king, you best not miss.

Edited May 18, 2022 by ChiGoose
Clarification

[ChiGoose]

33 minutes ago, Westside said:

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is not any amount of evidence that would change your mind. So, let’s agree to disagree.

 

Fair enough.

 

I will state that if what Kash Patel states comes to pass (Sussman is convicted and Durham starts getting convictions up the chain, proving a conspiracy), that will be convincing to me. I'm not ruling it out, I just don't see it as the most likely outcome. I hold no water for Clinton, I was still a Republican in 2016. I am just skeptical that she is capable of pulling off a complicated nationwide hoax, but we shall see.

[Orlando Buffalo]

7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Fair enough.

 

I will state that if what Kash Patel states comes to pass (Sussman is convicted and Durham starts getting convictions up the chain, proving a conspiracy), that will be convincing to me. I'm not ruling it out, I just don't see it as the most likely outcome. I hold no water for Clinton, I was still a Republican in 2016. I am just skeptical that she is capable of pulling off a complicated nationwide hoax, but we shall see.

I think where you and I really disagree is that Hillary did not have to do anything complicated, she simply did some digging for political dirt and used whatever she could to let the FBI do the heavy lifting, of which a few members were all too happy to run with. You mention all the indictments from this investigation, and most are similar to Manafort, he was charged for things he did years before the Trump campaign. In fact Manafort should have been caught by Mueller while he was at the FBI for his influence peddling, it is not a good look that he did all of it in the open prior to dealing with Trump.

[716er]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I think where you and I really disagree is that Hillary did not have to do anything complicated, she simply did some digging for political dirt and used whatever she could to let the FBI do the heavy lifting, of which a few members were all too happy to run with. You mention all the indictments from this investigation, and most are similar to Manafort, he was charged for things he did years before the Trump campaign. In fact Manafort should have been caught by Mueller while he was at the FBI for his influence peddling, it is not a good look that he did all of it in the open prior to dealing with Trump.

The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's ties to individuals connected to Russian intelligence while he was Trump's campaign manager "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" by creating opportunities for "Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign."

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, 716er said:

The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's ties to individuals connected to Russian intelligence while he was Trump's campaign manager "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" by creating opportunities for "Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign."

And yet in FOUR YEARS of a Trump administration Putin attacked exactly…nobody! Are you people living in a fantasyland? 2016 called and they want their foreign policy back! 

[716er]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

And yet in FOUR YEARS of a Trump administration Putin attacked what exactly…nobody! Are you people living in a fantasyland? 2016 called and they want their foreign policy back! 

 

Not sure what this has to do with what the poster I quoted was talking about. 

 

Your CAPS LOCK and ! also make you seem quite triggered.

 

 

Relax

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

Not sure what this has to do with what the poster I quoted was talking about. 

 

Your CAPS LOCK and ! also make you seem quite triggered.

 

 

Relax

Oh brother…..is there a more acceptable way to provide emphasis that you prefer? I hate to offend your sensitive keyboard.

[716er]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Oh brother…..is there a more acceptable way to provide emphasis that you prefer? I hate to offend your sensitive keyboard.

 

You emphasize an insignificant length of time related to what you quoted with CAPS and then emphasized what seems like it is supposed to be a sarcastic joke (it's sarcastic but terribly unfunny) with a !

 

This leads one to conclude you are triggered. Emphasizing unrelated points to make yourself feel in control.

 

Pathetic in another word.

[ChiGoose]

Well... this is starting to get out of hand...

 

This thread was originally started as a discussion about the Sussman trial and in two pages it has devolved into sh!tposting, mudslinging, and talk about being triggered and Putin for some reason.

 

I think there are valid disagreements to be had, but since I've really tried to get involved on this board over the last week or so, it seems that people are more interested in yelling at each other and making broad sweeping claims rather than actually engaging on any particular topic. It really feels like everybody tries to sort every post into either Left or Right and then brings all of their assumptions and accusations to bear based on that assessment regardless of the actual discussion at hand.

 

I will give credit to DrsGhost, Tiberius, Doc, Westside, and Buffalo Timmy for trying to stay on topic, but I feel like this thread is on the cusp of falling into the same scrapheap of garbage threads littering this part of the forum.

 

Anyhoo, I'd suggest reading the Mueller Report. It's dense but heavy on facts and citations. The media has done an absolutely terrible job covering what is in it, but it is very clear from the record that the Trump campaign had many connections to Russians and even collaborated at some points. That does not mean that Trump is a Russian toadie or in Putin's pocket. Both groups were interested in a Trump victory (or at least damaging Clinton should she succeed), but it does not appear they engaged in an agreement to corporate on that goal. At the time of the 2016 election, I still considered myself a Republican, but Trump and the party's support for him were too much for me to endorse and I ended up leaving. It's ok to change course sometimes.

 

I still maintain that the Sussman trial is being made out to be much more than it is, and that it is not going to end in some big unraveling of a Clinton conspiracy. That being said, if Sussman is convicted and then Durham starts securing convictions up the chain, I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

If anyone wants to actually seriously discuss the actual facts of the Sussman case (or any other interesting topic) and where they may lead, I'm down for it. But if this is going to just devolve into the rest of the garbage I see on the PPP part of the message board, I suppose I can log off for a couple years and see if things get better.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, 716er said:

 

You emphasize an insignificant length of time related to what you quoted with CAPS and then emphasized what seems like it is supposed to be a sarcastic joke (it's sarcastic but terribly unfunny) with a !

 

This leads one to conclude you are triggered. Emphasizing unrelated points to make yourself feel in control.

 

Pathetic in another word.

Sheeesh….Trump wasn’t President for four weeks dude. If he was going to be responsible for the end of the world as your gang likes to suggest….exactly how much time did he need to do it? Five years? Is that what you figure? Give me a break.

[Westside]

59 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Well... this is starting to get out of hand...

 

This thread was originally started as a discussion about the Sussman trial and in two pages it has devolved into sh!tposting, mudslinging, and talk about being triggered and Putin for some reason.

 

I think there are valid disagreements to be had, but since I've really tried to get involved on this board over the last week or so, it seems that people are more interested in yelling at each other and making broad sweeping claims rather than actually engaging on any particular topic. It really feels like everybody tries to sort every post into either Left or Right and then brings all of their assumptions and accusations to bear based on that assessment regardless of the actual discussion at hand.

 

I will give credit to DrsGhost, Tiberius, Doc, Westside, and Buffalo Timmy for trying to stay on topic, but I feel like this thread is on the cusp of falling into the same scrapheap of garbage threads littering this part of the forum.

 

Anyhoo, I'd suggest reading the Mueller Report. It's dense but heavy on facts and citations. The media has done an absolutely terrible job covering what is in it, but it is very clear from the record that the Trump campaign had many connections to Russians and even collaborated at some points. That does not mean that Trump is a Russian toadie or in Putin's pocket. Both groups were interested in a Trump victory (or at least damaging Clinton should she succeed), but it does not appear they engaged in an agreement to corporate on that goal. At the time of the 2016 election, I still considered myself a Republican, but Trump and the party's support for him were too much for me to endorse and I ended up leaving. It's ok to change course sometimes.

 

I still maintain that the Sussman trial is being made out to be much more than it is, and that it is not going to end in some big unraveling of a Clinton conspiracy. That being said, if Sussman is convicted and then Durham starts securing convictions up the chain, I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

If anyone wants to actually seriously discuss the actual facts of the Sussman case (or any other interesting topic) and where they may lead, I'm down for it. But if this is going to just devolve into the rest of the garbage I see on the PPP part of the message board, I suppose I can log off for a couple years and see if things get better.

I seriously hope you stay. I respect your opinions and find you very willing to actually engage in a conversation without mudslinging. 
 
I appreciate that. There are some good posters down here who would be willing to converse like adults. Then there are those who choose not to. I’m sure you will figure it out. But please stay and help bring some civility down here.

[Doc]

11 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

EDIT: I answered this based on the president committing a crime. As stated in the Mueller Report "collusion" isn't actually a crime as laid out in a statute.

 

I would agree that they probably should be prosecuted but I'm not confident that they definitely would be. 

 

I don't think we've ever had a former president criminally prosecuted before. The closest we came was Nixon but that became impossible when Ford pardoned him. Prosecuting a president is far trickier than your average citizen because they have additional protections (executive privilege, duties as president, etc.) that would need to be overcome in the trial. It also will immediately be politicized, potentially putting a stain on the office leading the prosecution.

 

So even if an investigative body has a strong case, they may be reluctant to bring it unless they are 100% certain they could secure a guilty verdict. And even then, they would have to weigh that against political concerns.

 

I don't love it, I think there is plenty enough evidence to indict Trump on obstruction of justice as well as breaking Georgia election law, but I'm not confident that will actually happen.

 

Bottom line for prosecutors: you come at the king, you best not miss.

 

So IOW, not guilty.