Durham says CIA found data alleging Trump-Russia connection not 'technically plausible,' was 'user c

I must give credit where credit is due but you are flogging a dead horse simply too lazy to fall.

 

And, to also give political fodder to the GOP & Trump regardless of factual evidence.

 

You certainly can. And the passage that bugs you so much is legally irrelevant to Sussmann's problem anyway.

 

The net widens.
Durham prosecutors detail criminal probe into tech executive ...
https://www.cnn.com › 2022/04/27 › politics › john-durh...

4 days ago — Special counsel John Durham has an active and ongoing criminal probe into a tech executive who worked with a Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign ...

 

Somehow it always gets back to the Steele dossier.
To Spy on Trump Aide, FBI Pursued Dossier Rumor Shot Down as "BS"

 

Step by step:
Durham closer to obtaining Fusion GPS records after judge agrees to review docs

 

It's much much more than that.

James Baker buries Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann in probe.

"A former FBI official delivered devastating testimony Thursday against former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann — saying he’s “100% confident” the defendant denied acting “on behalf of any particular client” when he handed over since-debunked information linking Donald Trump and Russia."

We all know that this was a coordinated scam by Democrats. I'm not buying your pretense to ignorance. You know this is the truth as well.

“I think it was pretty close to the beginning of the meeting. Part of his introduction to the meeting,” former FBI general counsel James Baker told jurors in Washington, DC, federal court."

It was obvious that he was lying from the start, yet, you are still fooled? I doubt that.

"Baker’s account directly supports the charge against Sussmann as a result of special counsel John Durham’s probe into law-breaking in connection with the FBI and Robert Mueller’s probes of purported Trump-Russia ties."

"Sussmann, 57, is on trial on a count of lying to the government during a Sept. 19, 2016, sit-down with Baker at FBI headquarters."

The only question is whether a D+95 DC jury will convict an obviously lying democrat.

 

So Baker says that Sussman said he wasn't acting on behalf of Clinton, but you "know that this was a coordinated scam by the democrats" ?

 

He billed the Clinton Campaign for his time he spent at the meeting, and the former Clinton Campaign officials have asserted privilege over documents demanded by Durham, claiming attorney client privilege!

Should be fun explaining why he billed the campaign for his time, even though he wasn't working for them, and why docs between them are covered under attorney/client privilege is there was no such relationship between them!

 

Fake News. It was always fabricated lying Crooked Hillary Campaign dirt. One of Hillary's lying lawyers is on trial right now for lying to the FBI and claiming that he was not on Lying Crooked Hillary's payroll while he was feeding them fake dirt on Donald Trump.

Sussman's defense is that the lie made no difference. Well, that's a claim that took a frying pan to head today.

FBI Lawyer Admits Knowing Clinton Was Behind Trump Allegations Would Have Changed Things

Lying Crooked Hillary.​

"I don't think I would have..."

"James Baker, who now works for Twitter" [of course!] "said that he likely would not have have met with Michael Sussmann, who passed on data that allegedly linked Trump’s business to a Russian bank, if he knew Sussmann was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign. “I don’t think I would have,” Baker said on the stand in federal court in Washington.

Of course he wouldn't have. This lie was told because without it, Sussman would have never been able to pass on the Lying Crooked Hillary lies to the FBI.

"Knowing Trump’s opponent was behind the allegations “would have raised very serious questions, certainly, about the credibility of the source” and the “veracity of the information,” Baker said. It would also have heightened “a substantial concern in my mind about whether we were going to be played.” No kidding dumbass and you were played, or at least pretended to be played. Its hard for me to believe that you are that stupid. This Baker's not painting himself in glory.

Lying Crooked Hillary's Liar Was Paid By Lying Crooked Hillary For Lying To The FBI On Her Behalf.
​

Lying "Sussmann told Baker in a text message the night before the meeting that he had sensitive information he wanted to pass on but that he was doing so on his own accord, not on behalf of any clients. Sussmann repeated the lie during the meeting. Sussmann later" finally admitted to "a congressional panel that the information was given to him by a client."

And that client was the Lying Crooked Hillary campaign.

Sussmann also worked for "Rodney Joffe, a technology executive who was promised a position in the government when Clinton won the election." Ooof!

"While Sussmann, Joffe, and others worked on the white papers that he ultimately passed to Baker, the lawyer was billing the Clinton campaign, according to billing records. Sussmann also told the campaign before he met with Baker."

 

He billed the campaign for time because he was their lawyer.

JFC you guys are getting laughable.

There is no proof that what he did with the data he got, nor that it had anything to do with the Clinton campaign.

 

Yeah, you aren't following too well. He told the FBI that he wasn't representing anyone when he passed the fake dirt to them, when actually he was representing the campaign. That's why he is charged with lying to the FBI. You are clearly confused, but, now you should have it all straight. You're welcome.

 

And...Big Deal...
IF any actual Crimes were committed...
THEN Prosecute to the Law's Fullest Extent and give 'em the Gurney if it rises to a Capital Crime...
As of now...All that anybody has is the Same UNPROVEN BS...
Does the Anti-Clinton Comedy Act plan on chasing down rabbit holes until Doomdsay?

 

It's easy to avoid being prosecuted for lying to the FBI,
Don't lie to the FBI.

 

You make the laughable claim that he "was" representing the campaign, please show the proof that what he was doing when he got the data, that Hillary was aware, and that her campaign actually paid for it.

Go ahead, we can wait.....

 

Ridiculous. That's the point of the trial. We'll all simply wait to see what the trier of fact determines.

If he was not acting as their attorney, then it's kinda weird that they are asserting attorney client privilege for documents produced during that period. But, I'm sure the trial will straighten all that.

So you figure Sussman was engaging in fraud by trying to bill the campaign for time when he was not even working for them? I would imagine that the campaign is quite angry about that. Have they alerted the Bar Association?

What do you make of the defense's back up argument that even if Sussman did lie about representing the campaign that the lie was not material?

 

They are asserting ATT-Client privilege because they are asking for everything, not just very targeted information.

Yes, The trial will sort that out.

FTR, if he was she should be prosecuted.....

 

If Sussman had evidence that would clear his name, he'd be able to present it at trial. Thus far, the tactic to claim 'everything' as att-client privilege, well we saw that play out before didn't we? And what was the response at the time? So what goes around, comes around. Everything should be up and open in a trial case.

 

AN, although I agree with that under normal circumstances, when it's political like this, the motives are'nt pure to the trial. and YES, I would say the same thing if to parties were reversed.

I just dont know how thy can prove that the act in question was billed to Hillary Clinton ?

 

Well I guess that's the whole point of the trial right? Bottom line, it was Hil's that paid for the BS info, it was Hil's where this dude got his info, and we'll see if it was Hil's plan that sent this guy to the FBI. At the end of the day, it's more disappointing that either party could coordinate a fbi and media blitz on an opponent so easily. It 100% made this country more divided and was yet another dirty clinton scheme that the left seems to now applaud. It takes us down a dangerous path moving forward if this is the new bar being set. If someone isn't punished you can bet both sides will employ this tactic moving forward and eventually will have even more dire consequences.

 

What do you mean "moving forward" ?

Were you not around for the 8000000000 Benghazi hearings ? That wasn't "political" ?

The data in question was data from the OBAMA White house. The info on the Yota phones was something they took to the FBI, but the FBI could not prove anything by just knowing that Russian made phones were on that network. But thats not really the issue here. The real issue here is Durham doing everything in his power to keep the lies alive. Durham will go down in history as the most blatantly political SP in history. Durhams case is very narrow against Sussman, but he is using the platform to go after Hillary Clinton by invoking her at every turn. His claim now is that he saw a note, about another "note" in a previous investigation when he interviewed Sussman that Durham does not have, but claims he saw. And that is the entire basis for invoking Hillary Clinton. Sussman doesn't want this to go to trial, their is no gain there, the real gain comes by keeping the political side in the news cycle.

 

More projection by you. We watched you and Ego and your weekly Trump collusion projections for 2 years, not one came true. Not one conviction of coordination with Russian, not one. I'll let Durhan do his thing just like I did when Mules did his. If one of them broke the law fry them and I said that about Trump too. This thing has proven to be a political plot at this point and that's fine unless someone broke the law. It divided this country and I don't even think you'll dispute that but I'll give you your say.

 

FTR, There was collusion. Mueller knows they shared their polling data with the Russians, he also knows that the Russians DID interfere in the election. Mueller just could not prove what the russians did with the data once they got it.

You and I agree that if he did something, he should be prosecuted. I believe in the law. All I am debating is the methods Durham is using to do what he is doing.

Some of this is just politics as usual. The problem is that we as a society have become hyper partisan because the politicians doing this see gain in dividing the country. Nobody in politics ever tells you what good they will do for you, they always tell you how bad the other guys is and how bad he is going to screw you.

I don't know if this is some "political plot" as much as its politics as usual. Getting dirt on your opponent is as old as the United States

 

Wow, you still believe in this!

I guess in a way, the level of faith you display is admirable.

 

You didnt read the Mueller report then.

Mueller made the claim that they did give the Russians their internal polling data, and that the Russian did work to help Trump. Mueller stopped there because he said he could not prove the Russians used the data they were given by the Trump campaign to target their assistance.