SHOT: Robby Mook "the purpose of giving it to the media was that a reporter could vet the information then decide to print it"
CHASER: Peter Fritsch (FusionGPS) "DO THE FUCKING ALFA BANK SECRET COMMS STORY. IT IS HUGELY IMPORTANT" pic.twitter.com/3aaDjE5ueG

— Durham is Coming (@Durham_isComing) May 21, 2022

He almost discovered how to conceal the source. Almost.

IMHO...Durham has "the lie" in the bag (if the Jury is fair). Is he anywhere near "conspiracy to defraud the govt."?? To me, it seems like there were several 'conspirators' who did or were willing to 'play their part' and did initiate a govt. investigation costing millions.

whatthehey78 said:

---

IMHO...Durham has "the lie" in the bag (if the Jury is fair). Is he anywhere near "conspiracy to defraud the govt."?? To me, it seems like there were several 'conspirators' who did or were willing to 'play their part'.

---

Not in this trial. Hopefully, there will be other indictments revealed soon.

With this jury I don't feel comfortable justice will prevail.

Question: If a juror refuses to vote guilty and admits to other jurors they know Sussmann lied what happens if anything?

richardag said:

---

With this jury I don't feel comfortable justice will prevail.

Question: If a juror refuses to vote guilty and admits to other jurors they know Sussmann lied what happens if anything?

---

Nothing unless the other jurors tell the judge. But with this judge, he'll likely declare a mistrial.

This trial is about much more than a single false statement charge -

It is Durham telling the public the story of how the Clinton machine and its agents used the media and the FBI to spread lies to influence the election.

Are we to believe it was limited to the Alfa Bank hoax?

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 21, 2022

https://www.amazon.com/Smear-Shady-Political-Operatives-Control/dp/0062468162

This book is one of those "conspiracy theories" for people that watch cnn for their info. We are seeing it play out with the info about this trial

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

With this jury I don't feel comfortable justice will prevail.

Question: If a juror refuses to vote guilty and admits to other jurors they know Sussmann lied what happens if anything?

---

Nothing unless the other jurors tell the judge. But with this judge, he'll likely declare a mistrial.

---

Thanks for the reply.

All of this has me thinking, "what did Seth Rich know?"

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That video is allsome

---

Actually, it is not. Joe Jamail was a very unethical lawyer. He lied like a dog, he cheated, he threatened witnesses and destroyed evidence. Because he could get away with that crap back then and get away with it.

Harder to get away with that now. Very hard.

That is real measure of how professional a lawyer really was. If he/she could cheat easier but did not.

---

I'm getting whiplash whether you respect our current judiciary or not.

Quote:

---

Actually, it is not. Joe Jamail was a very unethical lawyer. He lied like a dog, he cheated, he threatened witnesses and destroyed evidence. Because he could get away with that crap back then and get away with it.

---

Jamail was allowed to get away with murder - and got rich as a result. Being a business defendant in Texas has always been an uphill battle, and the shenanigans that go on (still) could fill many books. If defense attorneys pulled 1/100th of the crap we see out of the plaintiffs' bar, we'd all be disbarred - which is why I recommended in the Tesla seeking attorneys thread that they should recruit from the plaintiffs' bar. They are ruthless, skilled, and creative - and many lack any conscience.

The 'runners' and 'investigators' that are employed in the Rio Grand Valley are a perfect example.

Here's an example where the firm got caught: Kugle v. Daimler

3) Nobody in the campaign wanted any of it to be given to the FBI or other Govt agencies- at least not by the Campaign- and 4) When rogue agents and attorneys such as Steele and Sussmann did feed the made up dirt to the FBI, they did so without the Campaign’s knowledge or consent

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 22, 2022

And since going to the FBI would be so counter to the Campaign’s interests, because Comey was in charge and could not be trusted, it’s absurd to believe anyone in the Campaign either knew that happened or authorized it. @AndrewCMcCarthy has a new article out on the plan’s wisdom:

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 22, 2022

My opinion is that Durham will be challenged to break through this narrative, especially before a DC jury. But all he needs is for one insider to flip. Mr Sussmann and Mr Steele, are you listening? Your former client is perfectly happy to throw you under the bus.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 22, 2022

Twitter researchers working overtime this weekend.

Reminder that when DNC was hacked, it was defendant Michael Sussmann who managed the crisis for the DNC. He hired 3rd party CROWDSTRIKE to prepare a report which was provided to the FBI. The FBI was NEVER given access to the actual servers and relied entirely on Sussmanns word. https://t.co/Ey8UeDmWJ0 pic.twitter.com/6DQHxBZbYx

— Durham is Coming (@Durham_isComing) May 22, 2022

national security issue, which (if real) required an inspection by neutral law enforcement or US military. Is it possible that the Clinton team manufactured the hack just like they manufactured the Alfa bank allegations, which were later proven false?@ProfMJCleveland

— Durham is Coming (@Durham_isComing) May 22, 2022

Quote:

---

I'm getting whiplash whether you respect our current judiciary or not.

---

Unfortunately, it's not about the judiciary, it's about judges. Some care about the law, others care only about ideology or settling a score. It's really a shame. I clerked for a Democrat judge - he cared deeply about the law and how the system was viewed by its citizens. It was an honor to work for him. In our travels together, we met with many judges who were equally committed to the law, but there were plenty of others who were not.

This^ ... but there's more to Andrew McCarthy's NR article he didn't mention. The Clinton campaign (and Sussmann's atty) is building the firewall against Durham's ultimate MOAB ....Conspiracy to Defraud the US Gov. It wasn't illegal for the Clinton campaign to use the media to spread the Russia hoax ... but obstructing the lawful function of the FBI by deceit or trickery is a federal crime.

Proof that Clinton's campaign approved/authorized Sussmann back-dooring the hoax to the FBI is vital to Durham's anticipated conspiracy case. Without this proof, there is no criminal conspiracy and it was all just a dirty trick.

From Andrew McCarthy's NR article. Link

Quote:

---

In putting Mook on the stand, the defense wanted an assertion from the highest official in the Clinton campaign that the campaign would not have approved Sussmann's bringing the information to the FBI. Mook delivered, and further elaborated that Hillary Clinton herself approved the leak to the media. This supports the defense theme that the Clinton campaign wanted the TrumpRussia collusion narrative to be a media-driven story, not an FBI investigation.

---

Quote:

---

Moreover, the truth of the matter is that the Clinton campaign absolutely wanted to entice the FBI into investigating the TrumpRussia back-channel claim. That's why you won't hear a single campaign official assert, under oath, that he or she directed Sussmann not to go to the FBI.

It was not a matter of whether the campaign "trusted" the FBI; the campaign was trying to use the FBI. If the bureau could be persuaded to investigate, then the story would be more damaging to Trump, and more media outlets would spotlight it on the eve of the election. It would be the October surprise the Clinton campaign was banking on. That's why, when Clinton posted her tweet, it referred to a statement by her then-adviser (and now Biden national-security adviser) Jake Sullivan, to wit: "We can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia."

---

benchmark said:

---

This^ ... but there's more to Andrew McCarthy's NR article he didn't mention. The Clinton campaign (and Sussmann's atty) is building the firewall against Durham's ultimate MOAB ....Conspiracy to Defraud the US Gov. It wasn't illegal for the Clinton campaign to use the media to spread the Russia hoax ... but obstructing the lawful function of the FBI by deceit or trickery is a federal crime.
. . . . . . . .

---

I wonder if this may be why certain emails were requested by Durham and his team? I suspect there is some very incriminating emails and/or text messages floating around.

Quote:

---

3) Nobody in the campaign wanted any of it to be given to the FBI or other Govt agencies- at least not by the Campaign- and 4) When rogue agents and attorneys such as Steele and Sussmann did feed the made up dirt to the FBI, they did so without the Campaign's knowledge or consent

---

Verifiable bull*****

If this were even remotely true, they would have been distancing themselves from this the second it happened. There is absolutely ZERO chance Hillary and her campaign didn't know the second this hit the FBI. Show us a single email or text message from anyone in the campaign to back this crap up. We have plenty of press releases, comments, tweets, etc showing them push this BS, but not a single comment of them questioning the legitimacy.

Another observation from last week’s Sussmann trial. In support of the charge that Sussmann lied to the FBI by denying he was acting for a client when he met with GC Baker, Durham introduced 404(b) evidence of a similar lie Sussmann told the CIA at a February 2017 meeting.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 22, 2022

At the CIA meeting in early February, Sussmann presented the same DNS data and narrative about the Alfa Bank connection that he gave to the FBI back in September. But there was a major addition: Sussmann also presented data of use by Russian Yotaphones even after the election.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 22, 2022

Rather, Sussmann’s jury heard only that Sussmann gave the CIA Alfa Bank data, but Sussmann told them the information was not what he gave the FBI back in September. It sounded like another blatant lie, misrepresenting what Sussmann had previously gone to Baker and with what.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 22, 2022

And they are now free to conclude that not only did Sussmann lie to the CIA about having a client, but he tried to mislead them into believing what he brought them was different from something the FBI had already looked at and debunked.

— Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) (@KingMakerFT) May 22, 2022

Interesting note about the alfa bank EC: ASAC John Brown signed off on it.

When the Mueller team started he was assigned to it but according to Lisa Page, let go cause he wasn't a "good fit".

Is that cause he called out the BS? pic.twitter.com/cJk6HHlhAO

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) May 22, 2022

Furtherance of the conspiracy? I don't have time to look up when Sullivan was before Congress.

First two pages are Jake Sullivan’s testimony before the House Intel Committee about the Alfa Bank hoax. Third page is Marc Elias’s testimony in the Sussmann criminal trial about the Alfa Bank hoax. Looks like Jake Sullivan lied to congress. pic.twitter.com/GP1tgVzcbk

— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) May 22, 2022

I realize these last 25 pages, or so, are about Sussman and others, but now that Mueller's malpractice is beginning to surface, is there any possibility to sue?

I'm sure Durham knows, but there's likely a SOL, and I'm sure it's down the list of investigation goals.

BTW, Biden and Mueller belong in the same room of dementia.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

Actually, it is not. Joe Jamail was a very unethical lawyer. He lied like a dog, he cheated, he threatened witnesses and destroyed evidence. Because he could get away with that crap back then and get away with it.

---

Jamail was allowed to get away with murder - and got rich as a result. Being a business defendant in Texas has always been an uphill battle, and the shenanigans that go on (still) could fill many books. If defense attorneys pulled 1/100th of the crap we see out of the plaintiffs' bar, we'd all be disbarred - which is why I recommended in the Tesla seeking attorneys thread that they should recruit from the plaintiffs' bar. They are ruthless, skilled, and creative - and many lack any conscience.

The 'runners' and 'investigators' that are employed in the Rio Grand Valley are a perfect example.

Here's an example where the firm got caught: Kugle v. Daimler

---

And you just answered my question. thank you