[W:#290]Michael Sussmann found not guilty of lying to FBI in Durham investigation

[jpn]

It's disgusting to see the leftist rot inherit in the system.

Uh-huh.

The "rot?" It's all fake.

It's all made up by Trump, Trump minions, Fox "News," et. al.

But it's so much fun to pretend, isn't it? You get to feel all morally superior and righteous.

But reality continues to bite. Too bad. So sad.

 

[yankintx]

3 years and this all that they got?

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

...either you didn't get the point or you're playing dumb. Either way, try harder.

No it wasn't. This is a lie.

It was against the law for Flynn to do what he did. Claiming otherwise is a lie.

More lies. There were numerous contacts and meetings between Trump officials and Russian assets/agents/officials. Why do you just blatantly post lies about something we all know are lies? Who is your audience for this propaganda?

I did not say that. You know what I said, quit posting dishonest posts.

This is neither A) factual or B) relevant to the origins of Crossfire Hurricane.

They scrutinized the intelligence, much of which was proven true.

Donald Trump Jr. literally met with Russian government attorney to get information on Clinton.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

I think you might be overstepping a bit. If the call itself was the issue why was the FBI set to end the matter only to try one last time to get Flynn to lie about it? Do you really think presidential transition teams don’t talk to their counterparts?

 

[Slyfox696]

I think you might be overstepping a bit. If the call itself was the issue why was the FBI set to end the matter only to try one last time to get Flynn to lie about it? Do you really think presidential transition teams don’t talk to their counterparts?

You're coming into the discussion and are missing the context. Not a problem, just understand the context of the discussion changes what I was saying.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

You're coming into the discussion and are missing the context. Not a problem, just understand the context of the discussion changes what I was saying.

You said it wasn’t his job for him to talk to Kislyak and what he did was against the law. What do you mean?

 

[Plasmaball]

The man either lied about who he represented when he went to the FBI.
Or he didn't.
The jury said he did not lie-- that he said and it was known that he was representing the Clinton campaign when he spun his yarn to the bureau.

No. Enjoy the salt. We told you nothing would come of this.

 

[Plasmaball]

Obstruction of justice by Garland??

Not even. Let thongs run their course and then let him go after everything has been settled.

Just like barr did with Mueller.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

The man either lied about who he represented when he went to the FBI.
Or he didn't.
The jury said he did not lie-- that he said and it was known that he was representing the Clinton campaign when he spun his yarn to the bureau.

"When he went to the FBI" is the important part. Which is why I say the words used in Count 1, "that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying...", were a problem. We know he was representing others in just about every other aspect, but there was no proof that he specifically went to the FBI on his clients' behalf. We can dig into the meaning of "behalf" and will come upon his clients benefiting from it and therefore it's on their behalf, but I don't think that would fly. It's simple: there was no evidence to indicate he had gone to the FBI at the direction of his clients.

 

[MTAtech]

For the purpose of this thread I’m speaking of the swamp that planned the Russia hoax.

Ah, the Russia hoax that was no hoax.

All of Trump’s Ties to Russia, in 7 Charts

A visual guide to the many links between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

www.politico.com

 

[notquiteright]

Except the Dems didn't prove their case at all, and Dershowitz beat their asses; while Durham's lawyers proved their case. It's called jury nullification when 3 Dem donors sit in the jury, amongst other Dems.

Dems did, even GOP Senators agreed, and voted to acquit anyway so you have the two groups confused....

Again, the prosecutor had a great deal of say who sits on the jury. Pathetic 'case' with a lousy prosecutor.

But since when did MAGA care about facts??? The constant whine about a 'stolen' election in 2020 shows how little the Rabid Right cares about what a fact actually looks like....

 

[Anthony60]

Uh-huh.
The "rot?" It's all fake.
It's all made up by Trump, Trump minions, Fox "News," et. al.
But it's so much fun to pretend, isn't it? You get to feel all morally superior and righteous.
But reality continues to bite. Too bad. So sad.

They love people that just eat up whatever they say, help keeps the rot rotten. Politics is politics, and it gets dirty. But when the FBi starts participating, for years, we have serious problems. Good with you though!

 

[American]

Dems did, even GOP Senators agreed, and voted to acquit anyway so you have the two groups confused....

Again, the prosecutor had a great deal of say who sits on the jury. Pathetic 'case' with a lousy prosecutor.

But since when did MAGA care about facts??? The constant whine about a 'stolen' election in 2020 shows how little the Rabid Right cares about what a fact actually looks like....

I'm not going to relitigate these ****ing impeachments, but it was stated that the case against Sussman was pretty clear.

 

[notquiteright]

I'm not going to relitigate these ****ing impeachments, but it was stated that the case against Sussman was pretty clear.

Turned out not so clear and Barr now claims the real purpose was the smear and not convict anyone. The allegations were 'clear' the facts didn't support the claims.

But by all means ignore the facts in tRump's 2 impeachments- it is not a subject the MAGAs like to talk about...

 

[Ouroboros]

Nonsense. He wanted charges dismissed because he was corruptly interfering to help his party's leader. Even the judge of the case noted how highly suspicious it was.

It is against the law. This is not in dispute. As to why it was not prosecuted, there's no good answer to that, beyond the fact that wealthy and connected people are regularly not prosecuted for crimes unless it is A) unavoidable or B) very serious.

Well, it was the DOJ who would have decided not to prosecute. And, again, there's no good explanation for it. But it doesn't change the fact it is very clearly against the law.

I didn't claim to know, I said there was no shortage of possible reasons.

This makes absolutely no sense and seems like you don't understand there was a Russia probe already in progress.

No, the Washington Post did not say that. Devin Nunes, Republican and Trump toady, said that. But here's what the Department of Justice said, so the greater chance is that they know what they're talking about and you do not.

Michael Flynn’s Identity Was Not Improperly Revealed By Obama Officials, A Secret DOJ Report Has Found

The 52-page document was obtained by BuzzFeed News in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

www.buzzfeednews.com

LEOPOLD FOIA John Bash Unmasking Report

www.documentcloud.org

Says the person who thinks taking the word of Devin Nunes is worth anything. Try reading something beyond right wing propaganda.

Thanks for continuing to prove the statement I made to Lou C: you don't think you have to extend benefit of the doubt to Bill Barr; that you think you've got him figured out on the basis of your partisan rhetoric. Sullivan's opinion is irrelevant because he proved himself an idiot.

The "good answer" to the question is that you're completely wrong and there was nothing illegal about what Flynn did. If it had been illegal the DOJ would have prosecuted to the max, because they would have had to.

There was nothing Flynn said that demonstrated complicity with any Russian attempts at espionage; it was entirely an ordinary diplomatic call, which Mad Libs have tried to rework into "treason."

Explain to me why you think your source better than the Post link I provided.

I don't know why you make an issue of whether or not the call was recorded or merely an eavesdropping with note-taking. Either way, it was an intrusion on an American citizen with no legal justification. The only reason is because Flynn had got up Obama's nose hairs and certain FBI people conspired to take him out. Sadly, he was dumb enough to give them the opportunity.

 

[Slyfox696]

Thanks for continuing to prove the statement I made to Lou C: you don't think you have to extend benefit of the doubt to Bill Barr; that you think you've got him figured out on the basis of your partisan rhetoric.

No, it was nakedly corrupt. The DOJ had gotten Flynn to confess twice...the idea they couldn't win the case is asinine.

Sullivan's opinion is irrelevant because he proved himself an idiot.

THAT is what partisan rhetoric sounds like.

The "good answer" to the question is that you're completely wrong and there was nothing illegal about what Flynn did.

It was illegal. This is not in dispute.

If it had been illegal the DOJ would have prosecuted to the max, because they would have had to.

Nonsense. The DOJ regularly chooses not to pursue certain cases, for various reasons.

There was nothing Flynn said that demonstrated complicity with any Russian attempts at espionage

Wow, that is a REALLY bad attempt to move the goal posts.

; it was entirely an ordinary diplomatic call, which Mad Libs have tried to rework into "treason."

Keep moving those goal posts.

Explain to me why you think your source better than the Post link I provided.

Because your "source" was a partisan Republican Congress person who is a Trump toadie who literally left his Congress position to work for Trump and my source is the Department of Justice.

Are you serious with this right now?

I don't know why you make an issue of whether or not the call was recorded or merely an eavesdropping with note-taking.

You're posting falsehoods about what you said. Here's what you ORIGINALLY said:

"He was naive not to anticipate that Obama loyalists in the FBI would bug his phone"

No one said the call wasn't recorded. You falsely claimed his phone was bugged and that is not true. His call was recorded because of who he was talking to, not because they bugged Flynn's phone.

Are you really this ignorant to the facts of the case? If so, why are you posting about it?

Either way, it was an intrusion on an American citizen with no legal justification.

No, it was not. Again, see the DOJ report I linked to that was released through FOIA.

The only reason is because Flynn had got up Obama's nose hairs and certain FBI people conspired to take him out. Sadly, he was dumb enough to give them the opportunity.

This is just mind-numbingly stupid.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

No, it was nakedly corrupt. The DOJ had gotten Flynn to confess twice...the idea they couldn't win the case is asinine.

THAT is what partisan rhetoric sounds like.

It was illegal. This is not in dispute.

Nonsense. The DOJ regularly chooses not to pursue certain cases, for various reasons.

Wow, that is a REALLY bad attempt to move the goal posts.

Keep moving those goal posts.

Because your "source" was a partisan Republican Congress person who is a Trump toadie who literally left his Congress position to work for Trump and my source is the Department of Justice.

Are you serious with this right now?

You're posting falsehoods about what you said. Here's what you ORIGINALLY said:

"He was naive not to anticipate that Obama loyalists in the FBI would bug his phone"

No one said the call wasn't recorded. You falsely claimed his phone was bugged and that is not true. His call was recorded because of who he was talking to, not because they bugged Flynn's phone.

Are you really this ignorant to the facts of the case? If so, why are you posting about it?

No, it was not. Again, see the DOJ report I linked to that was released through FOIA.

This is just mind-numbingly stupid.

Are you referring to the Logan Act? What crime?

 

[Athanasius68]

"When he went to the FBI" is the important part. Which is why I say the words used in Count 1, "that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying...", were a problem. We know he was representing others in just about every other aspect, but there was no proof that he specifically went to the FBI on his clients' behalf. We can dig into the meaning of "behalf" and will come upon his clients benefiting from it and therefore it's on their behalf, but I don't think that would fly. It's simple: there was no evidence to indicate he had gone to the FBI at the direction of his clients.

But here is the thing--- a lawyer is hired because its generally thought he or she has the greater ability to advocate for the interests of the client than the client himself.
The lawyer is being paid for his or her judgement.
It was Sussman's judgement that Mrs. Clinton would benefit from the alfa yarn being told to the feds. He doesn't just cease being an advocate just because the client doesn't like what was done in his or her name.

The campaign had discussed reporting this. Sussman decided was in the best interests of the campaign for it to be reported. Whether he was wrong or right doesn't change the fact that he was representing the campaign.

 

[Athanasius68]

No. Enjoy the salt. We told you nothing would come of this.

Not sure why you are dancing.
the jury found that he went to the fbi as an agent of the clinton campaign.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Bad jury selections that should have been removed, but that's the breaks. Durham may appeal or he may not, but at any rate the former Clinton campaign manager testified in court that Hillary gave the ok for putting together the false report and sending it to the FBI. Seems like that's pretty bad. The not guilty of Sussman seems like they jury didn't pay attention.

 

[Integrityrespec]

It's pretty clear that Sussman worked to prepare fake information and then pass it on to the FBI. Seems something there isn't right.

 

[Athanasius68]

He wasn't charged with talking to the ambassador because he took a plea deal.

there was nothing to charge him with.
thiis isn't north korea, we can talk to people here.
even foreign diplomats.

Sure it is. The Logan Act.

That became the fallback after the quid pro quo theory fell apart.
and that was weak even before the transcripts were released.
and when they were released, we found than flynn suggested that rssia ought not overreact to the sanctions.
so logan act went out the window.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

But here is the thing--- a lawyer is hired because its generally thought he or she has the greater ability to advocate for the interests of the client than the client himself.
The lawyer is being paid for his or her judgement.
It was Sussman's judgement that Mrs. Clinton would benefit from the alfa yarn being told to the feds. He doesn't just cease being an advocate just because the client doesn't like what was done in his or her name.

The campaign had discussed reporting this. Sussman decided was in the best interests of the campaign for it to be reported. Whether he was wrong or right doesn't change the fact that he was representing the campaign.

Oh don’t get me wrong. I think Fusion, Steele, Sussman, Joffe, all of them, were involved in a coordinated effort to saturate Washington with these stories. I just don’t see evidence to contradict Sussman’s (I think totally bullshit) good citizen excuse.

 

[LouC]

Bad jury selections that should have been removed, but that's the breaks. Durham may appeal or he may not, but at any rate the former Clinton campaign manager testified in court that Hillary gave the ok for putting together the false report and sending it to the FBI. Seems like that's pretty bad. The not guilty of Sussman seems like they jury didn't pay attention.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

Bad jury selections that should have been removed, but that's the breaks. Durham may appeal or he may not, but at any rate the former Clinton campaign manager testified in court that Hillary gave the ok for putting together the false report and sending it to the FBI. Seems like that's pretty bad. The not guilty of Sussman seems like they jury didn't pay attention.

Actually it was that Hillary approved giving it to the media.

 

[Athanasius68]

Oh don’t get me wrong. I think Fusion, Steele, Sussman, Joffe, all of them, were involved in a coordinated effort to saturate Washington with these stories. I just don’t see evidence to contradict Sussman’s (I think totally bullshit) good citizen excuse.

that is not his excuse-- he is saying he told the truth that he was going to them as an agent of the clinton campaign.