they called it a conspiracy but they left off the word theory

[nevergaveitathought]

wtf next time ...well there wont be one

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

wtf next time ...well there wont be one

There isn't a this time except in you loons minds.

Hell bambino probably still thinks Trump is President....according to Q, he is!

[VitaMan]

Trump actually said the American Continental revolutionary army did a good job of securing the airports.

[Yssup Rider]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



They benefits musta run out.

No wonder they’re on the rag 24/7

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by SadOldHummer

thank you sad old poster

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Trump actually said the American Continental revolutionary army did a good job of securing the airports.

WOW! From the guy always chastising to stay on topic, you come up with this? What has this got to do with the FACT, that the Durham investigation released the message Sussman sent to James Baker, Council for the FBI that says.

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

That was the lie he is being charged with.

Special Counsel John Durham, in a filing late Monday, released what may prove to be a crucial piece of evidence in the case against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann—a text message he sent to the former FBI general counsel the eve of their September 2016 meeting stating "the same lie in writing" that the information he would share would be "not on behalf of a client or company."
In a filing late Monday, Durham motioned to admit evidence for the Sussmann trial—including a text message Sussmann sent to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker.
Durham contends that Sussmann was, in fact, working for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign at the time of the meeting.

Durham's original indictment alleges that Sussmann told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016, less than two months before the 2016 presidential election, that he was not doing work "for any client" when he requested and held a meeting in which he presented "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.


The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied in the meeting, "falsely stating to the General Counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client."
Durham, in his Monday filing, writes that Sussmann "had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients," including Tech Executive-1, who has been identified as Rodney Joffe, and the Clinton campaign.


The tech executive has since identified himself as Rodney Joffe. Joffe is not named in Durham’s filing and has not been charged with a crime.
"The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations," Durham wrote. "In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign ("Campaign Lawyer-1")."


Durham alleged that Sussmann, Joffe and Joffe’s associates "exploited" internet traffic about a "particular healthcare provider," Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building and the Executive Office of the President of the United States in order to "establish ‘an inference’ and ‘narrative’" tying Trump to Russia.
Durham alleges that Sussmann in February 2017 provided an "updated set of allegations," including the Alfa Bank claims, and additional allegations related to Trump to a second U.S. government agency, which Fox News has confirmed was the CIA.


Durham also called for handwritten notes from then-FBI officials—specifically the former assistant director for counterintelligence and a former deputy general counsel— to be admitted as evidence for Sussmann’s trial.


In handwritten notes about Sussmann’s meeting with Baker, purportedly belonging to the former assistant director for counterintelligence, Durham says the official wrote: "said not doing this for any client."
"Similarly, the Deputy General Counsel took the following notes, which stated, in part, ‘No specific client but group of cyber academics talked w/ him about research."
Durham includes images of the handwritten notes in his filing.


Durham is also motioning to admit Sussmann’s congressional testimony from December 2017.
The interview was conducted under oath by then-chief congressional investigator for the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation, Kash Patel.
In the line of questioning Durham is requesting be admitted as evidence for trial, Patel asks Sussmann if he engaged with the FBI and the CIA on his "own volition," to which Sussmann replied: "No."
Patel then asks Sussmann if his client directed him to have conversations with the FBI and CIA, to which Sussmann replied: "Yes."
Patel asked if Sussmann’s clients knew he was going to the CIA to disclose additional information in February 2017, to which he replied: "Yes."
Sussmann also testified that he had "a conversation" with his client, "as lawyers do with their clients, about client needs and objectives and the best course to take for a client."
"And so it may have been a decision that we came to together," Sussmann testified. "I mean, I don’t want to imply that I was sort of directed to do something against my better judgment, or that we were in any sort of conflict, but this was -- I think it’s most accurate to say it was done on behalf of my client."


Meanwhile, Durham, in his filing late Monday, also motioned to admit a Clinton campaign tweet from Oct. 31, 2016. Durham does not specify which tweet he is requesting to be admitted.
Durham could be referring to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Oct. 31, 2016 tweet stating: "Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."


Clinton, in the tweet, also shared a statement from her campaign’s senior policy advisor Jake Sullivan, who now serves as President Biden’s White House National Security advisor.
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow," Sullivan said in the October 2016 statement. "Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."


Sullivan said the "secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia."
Sullivan added that they "can only assume federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia’s meddling in our elections."
A second Clinton tweet from that day stated it was "time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia."
Clinton tweeted an image that states that Trump had "a secret server" to "communicate privately with a Putin-tied Russian bank called Alfa Bank."


Durham, in a footnote attached to the reference to the Clinton campaign tweet, states: "Currently, the Government does not know what particular defenses counsel plans to mount at trial."
"While it is plain from the defendant’s motion to dismiss that he plans to make a materiality defense, the defendant may choose to raise other theories of defense as well," Durham continues. "Accordingly, the Government’s motions in liminehere are intended to address evidentiary issues that might arise as part of various possible defense theories."

Sussmann’s trial is scheduled to begin on May 16.


VM, could you please explain what you meant by

This thread may be a new low, even for ECCIE standards.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

hellary sent out a telling tweet or text after sussman set things up

it makes it appear as if hellary was playing her part to further the russian hoax

... Now we know what was on Hillary's "missing e-mails"...

#### Salty

[Salty Again]

The liberal lads here are STUNNED.

They surely cannot believe that WE have been RIGHT about all
of this - and they've been WRONG! ...

"Where's the PROOF?" ...



#### Salty

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

...
VM, could you please explain what you meant by

VM means he still has not figured out how to counter argue any point coherently, especially ones that involve actual facts and requires actual thought. In short, Reality Acceptance Syndrome.

The lack of a mind is a terrible waste.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

...Don't forget the FBI ...

Good point

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

The liberal lads here are STUNNED.

They surely cannot believe that WE have been RIGHT about all
of this - and they've been WRONG! ...

"Where's the PROOF?" ...



#### Salty

I've already shown the proof...

Manafort's conviction.

Trunp's pardon.

You numbnuts still think Trump didn't fuck Stormy because of a court ruling. Your ability to draw logical conclusions about legal proceedings has been proven to be suspect.

[WTF]

Did investigators rely on the dossier for their findings?
No. The Mueller report does not present claims from the dossier as evidence, and many of the issues focused on by investigators did not come up in the dossier.

The dossier makes no mention, for example, of a July 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Russians and senior campaign officials including Donald Trump Jr., who eagerly accepted the request for a meeting after being told they were bringing dirt on Mrs. Clinton.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nor does the dossier mention that in August 2016, Konstantin V. Kilimnik — described in the 2019 Mueller report as having “ties to Russian intelligence” and in a partly declassified, bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2020 as a “Russian intelligence officer” with possible ties to Russia’s election interference operations — flew to the United States to meet with Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.

Investigators established that the two had discussed whether Mr. Trump, if elected, would bless a peace plan effectively allowing Russia to control eastern Ukraine, and that Mr. Manafort had shared internal polling data and campaign strategy information with Mr. Kilimnik, which the Treasury Department later said he passed on to a Russian spy agency. (The government has not declassified evidence for its escalating accusations about Mr. Kilimnik.)

The Senate report said Mr. Manafort’s “willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services” represented a “grave counterintelligence threat.”

Did Mueller rely on the dossier for any criminal charges?
No. The special counsel investigation led to indictments of 34 people and three companies. Many of those indicted — like Mr. Kilimnik — reside abroad and have not faced trial. Mr. Mueller obtained nine guilty pleas or jury convictions, including half a dozen close Trump associates. None of those indictments cited the dossier as evidence.

ADVERTISEMENT

The fact that Mr. Mueller did not obtain sufficient evidence to charge Trump associates with conspiracy is subject to disputed interpretations that overlap with the debate over the dossier’s significance. Trump supporters frame the lack of conspiracy charges as proof there was no collusion. By combining this with the false premise that there would not have been any Russia investigation without the Steele dossier, they portray Mr. Trump as a victim of a hoax.

Beyond pointing out that there is a range of cooperation and coordination that falls short of the legal definition of “conspiracy,” Trump skeptics argue that Mr. Mueller never definitively got to the bottom of what happened in part because of Mr. Trump’s efforts to impede the investigation — like dangling a pardon before Mr. Manafort to keep him from cooperating.

What was the main impact of the dossier?
Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.

Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.

Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates

[nevergaveitathought]

you have serious issues with topics and inconvenient facts

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you have serious issues with topics and inconvenient facts

.

[nevergaveitathought]

thats a stupid saying