TRM said:

---

I guess from earlier in the day:

Prosecutors read Sussmann Dec 2017 Congressional testimony into record. Q) When you engaged with FBI, CIA, you were doing that on your own volition? A) No Q) You were directed to have those conversations? A) Yes Q) Client was ok with you going to CIA? A) Yes #SussmannTrial

— John Haughey (@JFHaughey58) May 25, 2022

. . . . . .

---

So if I understand this, Michael Sussmann either lied to the FBI or to Congress? Was his testimony to Congress under oath?

Damn!

Did Defillipis really ask that question? I don't mind, but isn't that a public slam on Cooper?

It's really nice it's on the record, but IMO, can't make the judge terribly happy.

I can't remember the last time I was happy with the federal government, but that comment is one of them.

fasthorse05 said:

---

Damn!

Did Defillipis really ask that question? I don't mind, but isn't that a public slam on Cooper?

It's really nice it's on the record, but IMO, can't make the judge terribly happy.

I can't remember the last time I was happy with the federal government, but that comment is one of them.

---

I think it was a hypothetical.

Lawtouber covering this trial. Recommended by Rekieta.



It's still live as I post this.

aggiehawg said:

---

Lawtouber covering this trial. Recommended by Rekieta.



It's still live as I post this.

---

I second this. He goes through the transcript of the day and interjects lawyery thoughts. He is a criminal defense lawyer I believe.

Wow! Thanks Hawg!

Shoefly! said:

---

Wow! Thanks Hawg!

---

You are welcome but thanks Rekieta. He mentioned him on his feed today so I looked it up.

Today we finally found out why Joffe–who had extensive access to the FBI–needed Sussmann to go to the FBI. The operation was a two-pronged attack. First, Sussmann would get the FBI to investigate Trump and then Joffe would come in "independently" to back Sussmann's fake story. https://t.co/h8WIvgsehM

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 26, 2022

Staple this post to your forehead! Sussmann HAD to lie BECAUSE his affiliations were known. How many people testified that had they known the source it would have materially affected the investigation? Susmanns goose is cooked. Only a biased juror can save him now. https://t.co/cvIYxmIMBw

— Durham is Coming (@Durham_isComing) May 25, 2022

Give me a handful of cable ties, 50' of elect. wire, two nails and a live elect. socket. Sussman gonna 'name names' and maybe even make up some. He might even admit to kidnapping the Lindberg baby.




Well...it makes me smile thinking about it anyway. No...I never worked for the CIA.

Techno__Fog has great and timely picture of Curtis Heide in his latest article on Sussmann hoax https://t.co/eazEKLkz5X. Heide was the FBI agent who cuffed and perp walked Roger Stone while CNN got an exclusive. pic.twitter.com/FHixEVSTOG

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) May 26, 2022

Sussmann's defense yesterday made the prosecution's case, when their witness, FBI Agent Grasso, testified Joffe brought him Alfa Bank data & insisted he remain anonymous. @FDRLST https://t.co/62TsfDKwt3 1/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 26, 2022

Fast forward a few more days ...win or lose, the Sussmann trial ends. Durham has milked the Sussmann trial discovery and testimony dry. What's next before Durham drops the MOAB?

benchmark said:

---

Fast forward a few more days ...win or lose, the Sussmann trial ends. Durham has milked the Sussmann trial discovery and testimony dry. What's next before Durham drops the MOAB?

---

Is the purpose of this trial to get a conviction for lying to the FBI, is it to get people under sworn testimony to launch further investigations/create indictments, or other? Obviously, to anyone but the media and the most loyal Democrat, this was a conspiracy to first sully the image of Trump to win an election and then to spy on his Office. But what is the MOAB, the endgame?

Kool said:

---

Is the purpose of this trial to get a conviction for lying to the FBI, is it to get people under sworn testimony to launch further investigations/create indictments, or other?

---

Both.

Kool said:

---

But what is the MOAB, the endgame?

---

The expectation - Durham is building a case for Conspiracy to Defraud the US Gov with named conspirators from HRC's campaign staff, FusionGPS, Perkin Coie, Sussmann, Elias, Joffy, etc. Uncertain if anyone from the FBI would be named.

will25u said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Lawtouber covering this trial. Recommended by Rekieta.



It's still live as I post this.

---

I second this. He goes through the transcript of the day and interjects lawyery thoughts. He is a criminal defense lawyer I believe.

---

Thanks for posting this! After following this thread daily for the past many years - I've been wanting something like this right now!!

I hope I am wrong but I am listening to the jury selection episode now and I think the government lost this trial before the first witness was called.

The govt failed to even challenge a dem donor/phone bank worker who actually said she probably could not be impartial and set aside her political feelings (juror #757 at 31 minute mark). No challenge. Nada. Juror is qualified.



Other points of interest so far:
13 min
26 min
31 min ***

ETA: sounds like Jim Baker's tax preparer/CPA was seated on the jury

benchmark said:

---

Kool said:

---

Is the purpose of this trial to get a conviction for lying to the FBI, is it to get people under sworn testimony to launch further investigations/create indictments, or other?

---

Both.

Kool said:

---

But what is the MOAB, the endgame?

---

The expectation - Durham is building a case for Conspiracy to Defraud the US Gov with named conspirators from HRC's campaign staff, FusionGPS, Perkin Coie, Sussmann, Elias, Joffy, etc. Uncertain if anyone from the FBI would be named.

---

My hope is that congress flips and this investigation builds the map for congress to start holding people accountable. Probably a pipe dream, but one can still hope.

I'm wondering if Durham doesn't really care that much about a conviction in this case. Could the objective have been more about getting certain data points in the court records for future objectives and not so much about getting Sussman on this particular charge? I think It would explain why there was no particular objection to the jury or even any protest about the judge who is connected to Lisa Page.

Andy McCarthy on Sussmann trial: He's confident the case is going in his direction | Fox News

Why wouldn't he be with the judge and jury he's got.

My error.

3 Toed Pete said:

---

My error.

---

Sussman is confident the case is going in his direction.

From McCarthy:

Quote:

---

So what the Sussmann defense has been able to show is the government has big trouble trying to prove the materiality of the false statement, which is an essential element of it, because the FBI really wasn't fooled and because they went to great lengths to conceal the fact that they had accepted information from a partizan political source.

---

(1) If what it appears is about to happen, that the Sussmann case will be handed to the jury just before a 3 day weekend... it's a recipe for all kinds of hijinx, a "Memorial Day Surprise" of some kind.

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) May 26, 2022

(3) There are so many avenues to achieve this. One is Sussman's defense team themselves. Other culprits with an interest in derailing Durham at this crucial point would be Joffe, Clinton world, Elias, researchers, or others under his crosshairs like danchenko/Brookings folks.

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) May 26, 2022

(5) But there is an entirely different path that might manifest too:

Treachery from within the DOJ/FBI itself.

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) May 26, 2022

(7) it wouldn't surprise me at all for someone close to Garland to leak the existence of something Durham is up to so that people point the finger at his team.

Cough...cough..Lisa Monaco...cough...cough...Jake Sullivan's wife.

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) May 26, 2022

(9) So I can't predict what will come out this weekend, but I'm pretty sure something will. And when it does I hope the truth quickly comes out regarding who's behind it.😉

— Mccabe's Porsche on Blocks (@Larry_Beech) May 26, 2022

I look forward to Durham's closing arguments.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-sussmann-will-not-testify-defense-rests-durham-probe

Quote:

---

Michael Sussmann will not testify in trial, defense rests ahead of closing arguments
Special Counsel John Durham's team and Sussman's attorneys are expected to give closing arguments Friday
By Brooke Singman , Jake Gibson , David Spunt | Fox News Published May 26, 2022 11:34am EDT

---

A lot of people are starting to sense that there will be an acquittal.

It’s possible. But I’m afraid I think it’s an acquittal on materiality. It didn’t need to be. But they needed to fucking do the work on their trial presentation & they didn’t. Total hubris.

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) May 26, 2022

BMX Bandit said:

---

From McCarthy:

Quote:

---

So what the Sussmann defense has been able to show is the government has big trouble trying to prove the materiality of the false statement, which is an essential element of it, because the FBI really wasn't fooled and because they went to great lengths to conceal the fact that they had accepted information from a partisan political source.

---

---

Translation: Sussmann's lie was immaterial because the FBI would've opened a full investigation regardless of the partisan source of suspicious evidence.

What was the materiality in the General Flynn case?

benchmark said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

From McCarthy:

Quote:

---

So what the Sussmann defense has been able to show is the government has big trouble trying to prove the materiality of the false statement, which is an essential element of it, because the FBI really wasn't fooled and because they went to great lengths to conceal the fact that they had accepted information from a partisan political source.

---

---

Translation: Sussmann's lie was immaterial because the FBI would've opened a full investigation regardless of the partisan source of suspicious evidence.

---

Wouldn't that be very damning for the FBI AND the sources that it did use to open the hoax case?

You cut away this low hanging fruit through the law, then the only fruit that is left are the ones securely in the tree. Basically, the attorneys that Sussmann are defending are saying his was not the information that started the show.

Eventually you get to that information and then it becomes really bad.