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

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Colluding with a foreign country is treason.  Especially since many Dems (still) think Trump gave Putin something(s) in return for "helping him win."

 

Colluding with a foreign country is NOT treason.

 

Treason is defined by 18 USC § 2381 as:

Quote

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

While Russia may be an adversary, we were not at an open state of war with them. Nor does accepting help in an election likely meet the standard of "giving aid and comfort" since it would be Trump, not Russia, that is primarily benefitting. 

 

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

And my expectation is the results of the Durham investigation, where I expect multiple indictments of familiar names, will provide clear evidence that all things Russia point to the fabricated contents of the Steele dossier and the Clinton campaign.  

 

I would be willing to bet against this.

Edited May 20, 2022 by ChiGoose

[BillsFanNC]

Oh.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Oh.

 

 

 

 

I honestly don't see this as a problem. Pretty standard campaign stuff.

 

The issue at hand is if she, or campaign officials, directed Sussman to disclose the info to the FBI while telling the FBI that he was doing so on his own behalf.

 

Throwing chum to the media: 👍

 

Trying to deceive the FBI: 👎

[B-Man]

No.

 

It's not "standard stuff"

 

 

Handwritten Notes From 2017 Show FBI Agents Mislead DOJ On The Trump-Russia Investigation

by Hans Mahncke & Stephen Mcintyre

 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann is currently on trial for lying to the FBI about his role in pushing data pertaining to alleged communications between Trump and the Russian Alfa Bank. According to Special Counsel John Durham, Sussmann lied when he brought that data to the FBI’s General Counsel James Baker as part of the Clinton campaign’s efforts to trigger an FBI investigation of her opponent, Donald Trump. Specifically, Sussmann allegedly wrote Baker a text message claiming he was not representing anyone in providing the information when, in fact, he was representing the Clinton campaign.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/19/handwritten-notes-from-2017-show-fbi-agents-mislead-doj-on-the-trump-russia-investigation/

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, B-Man said:

No.

 

It's not "standard stuff"

 

 

Handwritten Notes From 2017 Show FBI Agents Mislead DOJ On The Trump-Russia Investigation

by Hans Mahncke & Stephen Mcintyre

 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann is currently on trial for lying to the FBI about his role in pushing data pertaining to alleged communications between Trump and the Russian Alfa Bank. According to Special Counsel John Durham, Sussmann lied when he brought that data to the FBI’s General Counsel James Baker as part of the Clinton campaign’s efforts to trigger an FBI investigation of her opponent, Donald Trump. Specifically, Sussmann allegedly wrote Baker a text message claiming he was not representing anyone in providing the information when, in fact, he was representing the Clinton campaign.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/19/handwritten-notes-from-2017-show-fbi-agents-mislead-doj-on-the-trump-russia-investigation/

 

 

 

 

Yes, leaking oppo to the media is very standard. It's why Madison Cawthorn just lost his primary. It happens in every campaign all of the time, constantly. It would be completely within standard practice for the Clinton campaign to tip off the media about the alleged Alfa Bank connection.

 

Where it becomes problematic is if they tried to get the FBI to act in a particular manner by concealing that it came from a campaign. That's what the Sussman trial is about.

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

I honestly don't see this as a problem. Pretty standard campaign stuff.

 

The issue at hand is if she, or campaign officials, directed Sussman to disclose the info to the FBI while telling the FBI that he was doing so on his own behalf.

 

Throwing chum to the media: 👍

 

Trying to deceive the FBI: 👎

 

I don't think this testimony has much relevance to Sussman and whether he lied or not.

 

It merely confirms that Hillary was aware of and approved putting out information to the media that her own team told her was suspect.

 

Sussman lying defense is getting into what the meaning of is, is territory.

 

We have a text from Sussman to Baker saying he was acting on his own behalf in bringing the alfa bank bunk to the FBI.

 

At the very same time we have Sussman billing the Clinton campaign for the alfa bank hoax.

 

You have to perform some very Clinton-esque pretzel logic to conclude that he didn't lie to the FBI

 

Sussmans Congressional testimony is also a problem for him.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by DRsGhost

[B-Man]

 

 

Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook Will Testify in Russia Collusion Hoax Trial.

 

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2022/05/19/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-robby-mook-will-testify-in-russia-collusion-hoax-trial-n1599247

 

 

 

[Doc]

45 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Oh.

 

 

 

It was nice knowing you, Robby...

[BillsFanNC]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It was nice knowing you, Robby...

 

 

They moved up Mooks testimony because he had a scheduled vacation. That vacation may end up being permanent. 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by DRsGhost

[snafu]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Politics.

 

Mueller felt he could not indict a sitting president so he essentially treated the report as a roadmap for impeachment. However, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. You could have unassailable evidence that the President committed crimes but it basically comes down to how many Senators are from the opposition party, not the actual truth of the matter at hand. We saw this with Clinton's impeachment too. In fact, until Trump's second impeachment, no Senator had ever voted to remove the President of their own party.

 

Now, the DoJ could still indict Trump but that raises many of the same political concerns I've outlined previously. Even if the evidence is ironclad, the DoJ would be immediately called out as a political actor who is only going after Trump because of politics. Given the hits to the reputation of the DoJ over the last several years, an institutionalist like Garland may be reluctant to pursue that path.

 

Trump was impeached and tried by the Senate twice.  But neither impeachment had anything to do with Russian collusion or with obstruction of the investigation into Russian collusion.

 

You speculate that Mueller figured he couldn't indict a sitting President.  Mueller did document a lot of acts of Trump associates.  Maybe the evidence didn't lead Mueller to conclude that he uncovered anything more than questionable acts.

 

And to top it off, Congress figured they couldn't impeach him for these things.  Are you saying that Congress was willing to let bygones be bygones yet impeached him twice on unrelated matters after the Mueller report came out?

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This notion is really hard to square with the pages and pages of evidence of the Trump campaign working with individuals working on behalf of the Russian government in the Mueller report.

 

I would like to think that if we had the same amount of evidence of the Clinton campaign working with the Chinese to help her get elected, we would be outraged as well.

 

In any event, it is clear from reading the actual report that Mueller did not specifically accuse Trump of committing crimes solely because he felt he could not indict a sitting president (giving him the opportunity to respond and clear his name via trial) and not because there was no evidence of crimes.

 

Given that Sussman going to the FBI was not the predicate to launch the Mueller investigation, and that Mueller actually found ample evidence of connections between the Trump campaign and Russians, I have a hard time believing that this Sussman trial is the loose string that Durham will pull to unearth some vast conspiracy. Like I've said before, if Durham gets a guilty verdict here and then starts getting guilty verdicts up the chain of the Clinton campaign, I'll change my mind. But I'd wager the chances of that are fairly slim. Even if Sussman is found guilty (which he may be), I'd expect that'll be the high water mark of Durham's investigation or at least close to it.

It took less than 4 pages for AG Barr to square the Mueller report. All the political inferences in the world can be drawn from a deep dive into the report, but the end result is simply and demonstrably what it is.  Political ruminations up to, and including the old "If we knew he was innocent we would have said so" are simply an attempt to stir up hostility without  an actual crime to pursue.  

 

Stepping away from that, let's assume Mueller was doing the Lord's Work and honoring the notion that the President could not be charged, did that courtesy extend to all Trump associates?  I read here and in many other places of the nefarious work undertaken by his children. Surely there must have been something related to Russia and/or obstruction?  You're read the report, you've done the deep dive.  We know anecdotally that deals were struck, people strong-armed, threats made and swat team sent to gather up little old men under the watchful eye of CNN.  We know Mueller had no qualms pressing the button on financial crimes unrelated to Russia and such, why not take out his family given the connection to the campaign and what seems to be ooodles of evidence?  

 

It seems clear now that the Clinton campaign worked with a representative of a foreign government to influence the election, and it seems clear that Biden and Obama knew of her efforts early in the election.  Do you see that as acceptable just because the guy likes Bangers n Mash v Stoli straight?  

 

On that note, btw, you seem like a reasonable person.  Was it incumbent upon Obama and Biden to reveal that the Clinton campaign was connected to the Steele Dossier when they were briefed on it in 2016?  You'll remember of course that these were difficult times in the Republic, the country being torn apart over Red Scares and Russians in the woods.  

 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/29/cia-told-obama-of-claim-clinton-conjured-trump-russia-scandal-spy-chief/

What do you think?  If the CIA knew of the plan, and Brennan read the admin in on the plan to use the falsified dossier to impact the outcome of the election, shouldn't that have been revealed for the greater good?  

 

Speaking only for me, I'm no more happy to be manipulated during an election cycle by a Brit with bad intent than I am a guy from Moscow.  

 

 

---Oh, and btw, as for Sussman, man I wish we could all find some common ground on knocking some heads when people leverage their role in government and leave the rest of us fighting in the street over whose crook is better than the others.  I have zero confidence that justice will prevail, that he has too many friends on the inside, including possibly the judge overseeing the matter.   Such is life. 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

It was nice knowing you, Robby...

Clinton Deadpool...

 

I say he accidentally chokes on the shoelaces of his loafers.  

[Doc]

42 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Clinton Deadpool...

 

I say he accidentally chokes on the shoelaces of his loafers.  

 

My personal faves are committing suicide by shooting yourself in the back of the head and a botched robbery where nothing was taken.

[BillsFanNC]

I guess someone told Solomon and he deleted the tweet.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by DRsGhost

[ChiGoose]

41 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Trump was impeached and tried by the Senate twice.  But neither impeachment had anything to do with Russian collusion or with obstruction of the investigation into Russian collusion.

 

You speculate that Mueller figured he couldn't indict a sitting President.  Mueller did document a lot of acts of Trump associates.  Maybe the evidence didn't lead Mueller to conclude that he uncovered anything more than questionable acts.

 

And to top it off, Congress figured they couldn't impeach him for these things.  Are you saying that Congress was willing to let bygones be bygones yet impeached him twice on unrelated matters after the Mueller report came out?

 

 

 

 

I am not speculating: Mueller stated explicitly in the report that he was not making a charging decision because he could not indict the president even if the evidence warranted it. He did, however, state that he had the ability to clearly state that the president did not commit any crimes if the evidence supported that statement, but that the evidence in the report did not support that determination.

 

I'm saying that congress is political, and often spineless. Instead of doing a proper wide-ranging investigation, they were mostly content to let Mueller do it, hoping he would come out and say the president should be indicted (something he wouldn't even consider even if it was warranted). They wanted someone else to do the work so they could keep their hands clean and avoid political problems. When the political winds didn't blow their way, they decided not to act and justified it by saying a conviction in a partisan senate was impossible anyway. In short: they were cowards.

 

14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It took less than 4 pages for AG Barr to square the Mueller report. All the political inferences in the world can be drawn from a deep dive into the report, but the end result is simply and demonstrably what it is.  Political ruminations up to, and including the old "If we knew he was innocent we would have said so" are simply an attempt to stir up hostility without  

 

Stepping away from that, let's assume Mueller was doing the Lord's Work and honoring the notion that the President could not be charged, did that courtesy extend to all Trump associates?  I read here and in many other places of the nefarious work undertaken by his children. Surely there must have been something related to Russia and/or obstruction?  You're read the report, you've done the deep dive.  We know anecdotally that deals were struck, people strong-armed, threats made and swat team sent to gather up little old men under the watchful eye of CNN.  We know Mueller had no qualms pressing the button on financial crimes unrelated to Russia and such, why not take out his family given the connection to the campaign and what seems to be ooodles of evidence?  

 

It seems clear now that the Clinton campaign worked with a representative of a foreign government to influence the election, and it seems clear that Biden and Obama knew of her efforts early in the election.  Do you see that as acceptable just because the guy likes Bangers n Mash v Stoli straight?  

 

On that note, btw, you seem like a reasonable person.  Was it incumbent upon Obama and Biden to reveal that the Clinton campaign was connected to the Steele Dossier when they were briefed on it in 2016?  You'll remember of course that these were difficult times in the Republic, the country being torn apart over Red Scares and Russians in the woods.  

 

https://nypost.com/2020/09/29/cia-told-obama-of-claim-clinton-conjured-trump-russia-scandal-spy-chief/

What do you think?  If the CIA knew of the plan, and Brennan read the admin in on the plan to use the falsified dossier to impact the outcome of the election, shouldn't that have been revealed for the greater good?  

 

Speaking only for me, I'm no more happy to be manipulated during an election cycle by a Brit with bad intent than I am a guy from Moscow.  

 

 

---Oh, and btw, as for Sussman, man I wish we could all find some common ground on knocking some heads when people leverage their role in government and leave the rest of us fighting in the street over whose crook is better than the others.  I have zero confidence that justice will prevail, that he has too many friends on the inside, including possibly the judge overseeing the matter.   Such is life. 

 

 

Barr's summary of the report did not accurately reflect the details and context within the report, something that frustrated Mueller.

 

As for the Trump family, Mueller did investigate Don Jr. for the Trump Tower meeting. Mueller concluded that, while the actions that Don Jr. took may have violated federal election law, that law has a mens rea component: the individual has to know that what they are doing is illegal. Mueller was skeptical they could prove that Don Jr. knew what he was doing wrong and so they declined to charge him. He was too dumb to crime.

 

There isn't much on Ivanka as it doesn't appear she was involved much with the Russia related activities within the campaign. I don't recall much of anything about Eric, though I'm not sure how involved he was in the campaign.

 

In regards to the claim that this was all cooked up by the Clinton campaign, the article you cite includes the following:

Quote

Ratcliffe said the intelligence community was unable to confirm the validity of the claim that Clinton cooked up the scandal. He wrote the information was derived from “Russian intelligence analysis ” that could have been an “exaggeration or fabrication.” Sources told Politico that members of both parties on the Senate Intelligence Committee previously discounted the claim as unsupported by fact.

 

The Steele Dossier took on a life of its own in the media because it was truly scandalous. But I think it often gets misconstrued as to what it was and what it was not. It was a raw intelligence document provided by an ex-spy on behalf of a client (Fusion GPS / Clinton Campaign / Whichever GOP campaign originally requested the document). Essentially, Steele talked to his contacts who gave him information and he documented it. It is not an analysis document that assesses the validity of the information, just that information he was told that may or may not be true. It also wasn't what started the Russia investigation. It definitely should have been handed to the FBI to investigate but it was problematic when it was leaked to the media (*cough* John McCain *cough*) because it was then stripped of context and blown out to be either a 100% fact based document that showed that Trump likes watersports in Moscow or 100% fake that shows a grand conspiracy to hurt Trump. It was neither of those things.

 

At the time that Russia was working to help get Trump elected, several members of the campaign welcomed the help from Russians and met with them for those purposes. That is very well documented. It seems unlikely to me that Clinton somehow manipulated the Russians and the Trump campaign into working together so that she could tarnish Trump. I've never met a Democrat who is that competent.

 

I think it's not only reasonable, but expected, that if you believe someone is committing crimes, that you report them to the authorities. If a campaign is doing oppo research and they find members of their opposition campaign doing shady things or possibly committing crimes, they absolutely should report that to the FBI.

 

As for Sussman, I have no strong opinion on his guilt or innocence. I would not be outraged if he was found guilty, nor would I celebrate should he be acquitted. While I find the case itself interesting, I have a hard time bringing myself to care very much about Sussman himself, one way or the other. I laid out the arguments being presented by both sides earlier in this thread and I think both are believable. It'll come down to the facts and what convinces the jury. Where I disagree with many on this thread is that the Sussman case is anything other than a single case of a guy lying to the FBI. I do not expect this to snowball into some big thing that takes down a bunch of people.

[Wacka]

37 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

My personal faves are committing suicide by shooting yourself in the back of the head and a botched robbery where nothing was taken.

My personal faves are committing suicide by shooting yourself in the back of the head DURING a botched robbery where nothing was taken.

[snafu]

35 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I am not speculating: Mueller stated explicitly in the report that he was not making a charging decision because he could not indict the president even if the evidence warranted it. He did, however, state that he had the ability to clearly state that the president did not commit any crimes if the evidence supported that statement, but that the evidence in the report did not support that determination.

 

I'm saying that congress is political, and often spineless. Instead of doing a proper wide-ranging investigation, they were mostly content to let Mueller do it, hoping he would come out and say the president should be indicted (something he wouldn't even consider even if it was warranted). They wanted someone else to do the work so they could keep their hands clean and avoid political problems. When the political winds didn't blow their way, they decided not to act and justified it by saying a conviction in a partisan senate was impossible anyway. In short: they were cowards.

 

 

Barr's summary of the report did not accurately reflect the details and context within the report, something that frustrated Mueller.

 

As for the Trump family, Mueller did investigate Don Jr. for the Trump Tower meeting. Mueller concluded that, while the actions that Don Jr. took may have violated federal election law, that law has a mens rea component: the individual has to know that what they are doing is illegal. Mueller was skeptical they could prove that Don Jr. knew what he was doing wrong and so they declined to charge him. He was too dumb to crime.

 

There isn't much on Ivanka as it doesn't appear she was involved much with the Russia related activities within the campaign. I don't recall much of anything about Eric, though I'm not sure how involved he was in the campaign.

 

In regards to the claim that this was all cooked up by the Clinton campaign, the article you cite includes the following:

 

The Steele Dossier took on a life of its own in the media because it was truly scandalous. But I think it often gets misconstrued as to what it was and what it was not. It was a raw intelligence document provided by an ex-spy on behalf of a client (Fusion GPS / Clinton Campaign / Whichever GOP campaign originally requested the document). Essentially, Steele talked to his contacts who gave him information and he documented it. It is not an analysis document that assesses the validity of the information, just that information he was told that may or may not be true. It also wasn't what started the Russia investigation. It definitely should have been handed to the FBI to investigate but it was problematic when it was leaked to the media (*cough* John McCain *cough*) because it was then stripped of context and blown out to be either a 100% fact based document that showed that Trump likes watersports in Moscow or 100% fake that shows a grand conspiracy to hurt Trump. It was neither of those things.

 

At the time that Russia was working to help get Trump elected, several members of the campaign welcomed the help from Russians and met with them for those purposes. That is very well documented. It seems unlikely to me that Clinton somehow manipulated the Russians and the Trump campaign into working together so that she could tarnish Trump. I've never met a Democrat who is that competent.

 

I think it's not only reasonable, but expected, that if you believe someone is committing crimes, that you report them to the authorities. If a campaign is doing oppo research and they find members of their opposition campaign doing shady things or possibly committing crimes, they absolutely should report that to the FBI.

 

As for Sussman, I have no strong opinion on his guilt or innocence. I would not be outraged if he was found guilty, nor would I celebrate should he be acquitted. While I find the case itself interesting, I have a hard time bringing myself to care very much about Sussman himself, one way or the other. I laid out the arguments being presented by both sides earlier in this thread and I think both are believable. It'll come down to the facts and what convinces the jury. Where I disagree with many on this thread is that the Sussman case is anything other than a single case of a guy lying to the FBI. I do not expect this to snowball into some big thing that takes down a bunch of people.

 

To the first bolded part -- aside from the fact that Mueller's job was to investigate and report (not charge) do you think Trump did anything wrong in 2016?  Do you think the House should have impeached Trump for his alleged misdeeds in the 2016 campaign?

 

To the second bolded part -- the dossier was handed to the the press and the FBI simultaneously in order to create a feedback loop of reporting and investigation.  It was the main predicate for the Carter Page FISA warrants.  It was bullshyt, but it was useful bullshyt --used to maintain an investigation into Trump that revealed nothing of substance.  It is the same pattern as the Sussman case.

 

To the third bolded point, I think Sussman has a plausible defense.  Whether he really was acting as a concerned citizen is plausible.  The prosecution doesn't seem able to directly connect Sussman to a plan to bring the Alfa Bank information to the FBI -- though it smells real bad like that was the plan.

 

So what you have with the 2016 campaigns (both of them) are allegations and nothing "provable".

 

You might say that the Trump campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors to influence the 2016 campaign.

A better case might be made that the Clinton campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors and our own Government to influence the 2016 campaign.

Which is worse?

 

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by snafu

[SoCal Deek]

6 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Colluding with a foreign country is treason.  Especially since many Dems (still) think Trump gave Putin something(s) in return for "helping him win."

We know exactly what he gave Putin. We all heard him in that hot microphone moment when he told Putin’s staff he’d “have more flexibility after the election”. 
 

 

Oh wait….that wasn’t Trump, was it?

 

Unbelievable! 

[ChiGoose]

43 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

To the first bolded part -- aside from the fact that Mueller's job was to investigate and report (not charge) do you think Trump did anything wrong in 2016?  Do you think the House should have impeached Trump for his alleged misdeeds in the 2016 campaign?

 

To the second bolded part -- the dossier was handed to the the press and the FBI simultaneously in order to create a feedback loop of reporting and investigation.  It was the main predicate for the Carter Page FISA warrants.  It was bullshyt, but it was useful bullshyt --used to maintain an investigation into Trump that revealed nothing of substance.  It is the same pattern as the Sussman case.

 

To the third bolded point, I think Sussman has a plausible defense.  Whether he really was acting as a concerned citizen is plausible.  The prosecution doesn't seem able to directly connect Sussman to a plan to bring the Alfa Bank information to the FBI -- though it smells real bad like that was the plan.

 

So what you have with the 2016 campaigns (both of them) are allegations and nothing "provable".

 

You might say that the Trump campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors to influence the 2016 campaign.

A better case might be made that the Clinton campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors and our own Government to influence the 2016 campaign.

Which is worse?

 

 

 

1. do you think Trump did anything wrong in 2016?  Do you think the House should have impeached Trump for his alleged misdeeds in the 2016 campaign?

I think that the Trump campaign certainly did bad things, some even criminal. A foreign power was trying to influence the election and the campaign was happy to receive their help, even soliciting it at times. How much of this is Trump versus his associates is up for debate, especially as Trump himself does not leave much of a paper trail.

 

I think that the House should have impeached Trump for obstruction of justice into the Mueller investigation. They had him dead to rights on more than one count and could persuasively argue several others. Despite this, the senate would absolutely not convict in any scenario. Still, it was their duty to at least try to hold him accountable for his actions and they failed to do so.

 

2a. the dossier was handed to the the press and the FBI simultaneously in order to create a feedback loop of reporting and investigation

 

I do not believe this is true. Steele claims to have handed the dossier to the FBI in July 2016: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/09/politics/feinstein-releases-glenn-simpson-transcript/index.html

 

From what I've seen, the first mentions of the dossier in the media weren't until September 2016 and BuzzFeed did not release the entire text until January 2017, after the election.

 

2b. an investigation into Trump that revealed nothing of substance

 

I would disagree that a presidential campaign working with a foreign adversary to influence an election is "nothing of substance"

 

3. I think Sussman has a plausible defense.  Whether he really was acting as a concerned citizen is plausible.

 

I would agree that this is plausible but by no means assured. If Sussman discovered the Alfa Bank connection and was truly alarmed and went to the FBI with it, then that is not a crime nor even a problem. We should encourage that sort of behavior. But if he went there on the orders of the campaign and lied about his purposes, then that is a serious problem and even a crime if that lie is deemed material.

 

4. So what you have with the 2016 campaigns (both of them) are allegations and nothing "provable". / You might say that the Trump campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors to influence the 2016 campaign.

 

For Trump's campaign I would. Mueller did. The evidence lays it out pretty clearly. The Trump campaign actively engaged with agents of the Russian government in order to help them win the 2016 election. That is undisputable fact.

 

5. A better case might be made that the Clinton campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors and our own Government to influence the 2016 campaign.

 

Not at all. That would be a much worse case to make. Which is why it hasn't been made by an investigated body.

 

Steele was not working on behalf of the British government. He was not part of a concerted effort by the UK to elect Clinton. He was a contractor doing oppo research. In that research, he was given information that may amount to crimes or compromise if they were true so he provided that information to the FBI. That is exactly what he should have done and what anybody should do in that situation. Ultimately, the FBI can investigate and determine the truth. With the Alfa Bank thing, they quickly decided it was not true.

 

Once again, if you come across something that might be a crime and you report it to the FBI, that does not constitute a conspiracy to influence an election. And it does not constitute a conspiracy with a foreign government if one of the people you worked with wasn't from America.

Edited May 20, 2022 by ChiGoose
Clarification on point 4