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

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/1...islead-doj-on-the-trump-russia-investigation/

HYPERLINK has full article

snip

In a surprising move, Sussmann’s defense team last week disclosed three sets of handwritten Department of Justice (DOJ) notes of a March 6, 2017 meeting between high-ranking DOJ and FBI officials. ....................

The significance of the FBI’s lies was accentuated this week at Sussmann’s trial when Scott Hellman, an FBI cyber analyst, testified that he knew right away in September 2016 that Sussmann’s data did not suggest any covert communications between Trump and Russia. Hellman added that he wondered if the person who put together the data was suffering from a mental disability...................

The other major component of the investigation was the Steele dossier. The FBI knew from a January 2017 interview of Igor Danchenko, Christopher Steele’s “Primary Sub-Source” through whom all the allegations in the Steele dossier were originated or channeled, that the dossier too was false.

end snip

I would post a link to NPR or even ABC but darn if I can find one mention of how DC targeted a duly elected POTUS to stop the mandate given to him by the voters.

No American should support what the Democrat party and DC did.

 

So, a March 6, 2017 meeting between the DOJ and the FBI discussing the investigation into Trump's Campaign for alleged Kremlin ties is to put blame on HRC?

DJT took the oath on January 20, 2017. This was less than three months which the FBI took the notes of said meeting. The Federalist somehow claims the notes on some subject was "lies" without offeriing any examples or proof of alleged lies.

So, the transcripts of the upcoming jury trial is here. I reviewed the documents in May, 2022. The May 19th document is a notice in which the defendant is requesting to strike the testimony of a certain witness for the special prosecution, Mr. Elias, which the defense asked, "“To your knowledge, did Mr. Sussmann go to the FBI on 9th on behalf of the HFA campaign?” Mr. Elias responded, "I think you’d have to ask Mr. Sussmann. I mean, as far as I – I mean I don’t know. From my standpoint, I would say no. But like – ‘on behalf of’ [is] kind of [like] a subjective intent thing." So, either Mr. Elias didn't know or was being evasive in his answer while giving sworn testimony. That is not hearsay, which the article stated by the Federalist. When the special prosecution redirected to the testimony, the questions asked were objected by the defense and were sustained. That means the question was improper and thus the jury will "disregard" such questions. Furthermore, the special counsel is trying to get Mr. Sussaman to answer a key question, that is, did Mr. Susserman go to the FBI on September 19, 2016 on behalf of HRC campaign. If that question cannot be answered by the expert testimony of Mr. Elias, then that testimony should be stricken from the trial. And if that evidence is key to the Special Prosecution which only Mr. Susserman can answer, and he refuses to answer under the 5th amendment, then the case has serious flaws for a conviction on charges.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.138.0.pdf

For those who are interested, here are the notes. Caution: Notes are not typed, but handwritten. And it may be hard to determine certain words based on the handwriting.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.123.1_1.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.123.2_1.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.123.3.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.123.4_1.pdf

Basically, what the defense is arguing is that the notes should be excluded from evidence because the parties involved, not all can testify or should testify. It creates a hearsay issue when you have notes being interpreted by the Special Prosecutor and the Defense is unable to cross-examine the interpretation. And second, the defense is asking that the note taker testifies to what the notes mean. Some of it is shorthand and hard to tell what the notes were actually referring to and by whom, sometimes. Special Prosecutor wants to enter the notes into evidence for the trial but not have anyone to testify unless it is Mr. Sussmann, who was there at the meeting where the notes were taken.

In my personal opinion, this is very difficult for Special Counsel here. And under rules of evidence, namely rule 803(1), I think the notes should be entered as long as the note taker or the other persons in the meeting testify on said notes.

 

Seriously?



I've seen extreme hatred on this forum, but starting several viruently hate-filled rants in a row is beyond the pale. You deserve some sort of prize.

 

To say nothing of the FACT that this Entire "Story" (the latest Daily RW Faux Outrage Material) is ANCIENT News and dredging up crap that happened over 5 years ago...
IF actual "crimes" were committed...
THEN, Why haven't all of these "criminals" ended up in Supermax (or waiting their turn on The Gurney)...?
This whole thing is much ado about nothing..

 

For the Dems/Left/MSM the means justified the ends. One day the press that went along will be held accountable I hope. We have seen the ratings fall of those who got caught as part of this huge ugly scheme and hopefully the Durham investigation will expose more of it.

 

Hey!

What else does RW misinformation machine have - they cannot mention voter fraud as they are all shivering about the Dominion lawsuit and “Replacement theory” and other dog whistles are also legally fraught right now because I am betting every media lawyer worth their salt is saying it crosses the “malicious intent” line

 

The lies about Kremlin ties, the made up story about Kermlin ties, the meeting based on a lie. The FBI knew the information was false yet they took part in the scheme to tarnish Trump and get an investigation going that could then be dragged out for years. All based on phony data the Clinton campaign had created and then false fed to the FBI telling them the press had it and was going to report it so they should investigate it and then taking it to the press and telling them the FBI/DOJ was going to open an investigation into Trump being an Russian agent and having these secret back channels and they better start reporting it. My what a tangled web they tried to weave.

And we have the billing records showing Sussmann was paid by the Clinton campaign as their representative and we have other attorneys at the firm planning to plead attorney client privilege when asked about it.

 

Trump was so innocent that he only pardoned people who refused to cooperate. Anyone who talked, he turned his back on them.

 

Yup...
Well said, MG...

 

LOL, and what does this response have to do about the date and the OP assertion? Absolutely nothing whatsoever on your part.

So, basically, you have no response to my analysis of the testimony by Mr. Elias? Got it.

 

Good analysis. Sadly it is likely to be beyond the intellectual capability of any of our opponents here.

 

Thanks.

 

The defense's request will be denied, for one simple fact: It is not the obligation of the prosecution to make the defense's argument for it. If the defense wants to make the argument that Sussman did not lie about his connections to the Clinton Campaign, it should be able to do so notwithstanding the prosecution's assertion: That in fact Sussman was connected.

That's what we would call a counter factual. Like @Egoboy said: Texts, calls, etc. If the case can be made by Sussman that he didn't lie then his lawyers can present that case, not "wah, these people in high places can't be expected to testify so we won't be able to question them." They have their statements under sworn oath, that's good enough.

 

Understand your arguement, though I think this is a slightly different angle. I actually don't understand the pleading the fifth thing in the US. In Australia if you're obliged to stand before court you need to answer their questions. (Though the standard gambit there is to say "I don't recall".

Broadly speaking, I think it's pathetic how long these things take.

 

I gave you a response, you still post as if the information was factual and had been verified. It was fake from the getgo.

Did you hear the campaign manager today testified the Hillary was told about it from the getgo and gave her approval for the plan?

Hillary Clinton approved dissemination of Trump-Russian bank allegations to media, campaign manager testifies
Clinton's former campaign manager said he took the idea of leaking Trump-Russia allegations to multiple senior campaign officials
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hi...trump-russian-bank-allegations-sussmann-trial

 

Excellent analysis!
You spent a lot of time on that!
Unfortunately, most people aren't going to go to all the trouble to dig in that far, and don't have the legal knowledge it takes (including myself), but take the word of someone who says it means what they want to hear. The Federalist seems to be right leaning, and I think they shaded it to appease the readers.
As you aptly pointed out, there are some anomalies in their report, and they seem to want to tell the reader what their take on it is without giving them the actual information. I wanted to see the notes themselves, but the Federalist didn't supply those, just their interpretation. Always a bad sign.
Thanks for posting those!
Kinda like CNN saying "what Trump means ............" instead of supplying his statement, and let me, the reader or listener, determine what was meant.
I like to see/hear the original statement or data.

 

We're all well aware of who Sussman is, he's the liar currently on trial for lying to the FBI by claiming he was NOT working for the Crooked Hillary Campaign while he was feeding the FBI lies about the phony lies the Crooked Hillary Campaign produced that the Dirtbag FBI then laundered into illegal spying warrants that were used to first try to rig the election and then when they failed at that, to drive the President from office.

"I Am Indeed Out For Blood": Elon Musk Says 2016 Hillary Tweet 'Absolutely' Disinformation, Asks Parag To Weigh In

"That tweet is a Clinton campaign hoax..."

A week before the 2016 election that they tried to rig, Lying Hillary "Clinton notably tweeted "Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank," to which user @veespike asked Musk: "@elonmusk I have reported this tweet as misleading disinformation to the powers that be at @twitter. I would be interested to know if, when you receive control over the company, anything was done with this at any level. Pls advise soonest.""

"You are absolutely correct," Musk replied, adding "That tweet is a Clinton campaign hoax for which their campaign lawyer is undergoing a criminal trial."

"Musk then asked Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and top Twitter attorney Vijaya Gadde to weigh in."

Elon Musk's bid to restore Free Speech to Twitter must be approved by the SEC:

"Guess who was Hillary's CFO and has already been dinged for misappropriating expenses for the fake Dossier. Gary Gensler at the SEC."

Lying Crooked Hillary.​

"Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook dropped a bombshell in court on Friday - testifying that" Lying Crooked "Hillary Clinton approved the dissemination of allegations that then-candidate Donald Trump had a covert communications channel with a Russian bank, despite campaign officials not being "totally confident" in the rumor'".

Run The Lies, She Demanded.​

Elon Musk has demanded that if the Lying Fake News fabricates a scandal involving him that they dub it "Elongate".

 

The motion may be denied or it may be granted. However, it is based on the federal rules of evidentiary procedure per the Federal Court guidelines. Those must be followed; otherwise, it is grounds for appeal.

I think it will be both denied and approved. The question will be how har the court will go. The notes can be entered into evidence and allow the jury to make their own determination; however, only the note taker will be allowed to give testimony on the notes. The expert will be limited to what he knows, not what he thinks he knows. And that will help the defense more than the prosecution.

 

And yet, that is politics here. Nothing HRC did was illegal. In fact, that is what political campaigns usually do. They find dirt and exploit the dirt to fit their political agenda of getting their client elected or the other person or persons not elected.

However, none of this is my argument of the legal case at hand. Prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not Mr. Sassman is guilty of all charges. He is probably guilty of perjury under 18 USC 1621

 

How do you know exactly what she did? You think political campaigns usually pay people, who want to work for their possible administration, to use their ability to surveil their political opposition because they have access through a government contract to produce FAKE data to create a FALSE narrative that their political opposition is an agent for a foreign government and then take that fake data and have one of their campaign attorney's call his buddy at the FBI and present a FAKE narrative that he is just being a good citizen who somehow has this dirt on their buddy Hillary's political opposition and the press is about to run with it so you better open an investigation into him, which the FBI buddy immediately got them to do, and then the Campaign with Hillary's blessing goes to the press and tells them the FBI is about to open an investigation into Trump you guys better start reporting it. You think that is what political campaigns usually do and administrations usually do. Obama was fully briefed on the fake data and Hillary trying to use it to draw attention from herself.

So it is time we find out what did Hillary know and when did she know it because she went around the country portraying both the FBI investigation and press reporting as "Look it MUST be true". Was it illegal, we don't know how far up the illegalities go and Hillary has been a master of having her minions fall on their swords for here even serving prison time, even committing suiscide. But what we know NOW is enough to make anyone with a reasonable mind to be up in arms and demanding the law be fully enforced and against all involve in this the worst political scheme, dirty trick, misuse of government resources and abuse of the press I have ever seen and that I know of in our history.

 

You are obfuscating two issues here Blues, but that is not surprising. For starters, political campaigns do in fact do research on their opponents. It is perfectly legal AS LONG AS the political campaign follows the campaign finance laws in place, among other laws. If the candidate is holding office, one of the laws under 5 CFR is not to use their office in any official capacity to direct, dictate, or assign campaign work to the staff for research on other political candidates. Trump allegedly did that when he asked Putin for the dirt or tried to use Zelensky to find the dirt on Hunter Biden. That is one issue and HRC was not part of the Obama administration when she ran for president in 2016, a detail you ignore completely in your argument. The other issue is the FBI investigating possible foreign agents infiltrating the Trump campaign. It appears there may have been enough probable cause in which foreign agents were meeting with a presidential candidate in 2016 in order to obtain political favors if a foreign nation were to assist that campaign for the candidate to win. That is against federal law by the foreign agents. The decision was based on the Steele Dossier. Some parts were verified, some were not. And that is where Mr. Sassman comes in as an FBI agent. Hence the second isuse, which is mutually exclusive from the first.

https://time.com/5288607/donald-trump-fbi-spygate/

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/25/17380212/spygate-trump-russia-spy-stefan-halper-fbi-explained

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

 

More significantly what the Obama administration, the DOJ and other agencies, and the Hillary campaign did was the greatest threat to our democracy and constitutional republic we have ever faced.

 

Well yeah, they are disloyal and didn't help him cover up the criming and take the rap. Rats, you know..
As for the Jan 6th seditionists, they were useful idiots and still will be because cult.

 

I might or might not be picky, but Mr. Elias' testimony is textbook hearsay.

 

I think you re incorrect on many counts, but I do appreciate your thoroughness.