Hillary Clinton spent $10 million to engineer fictitious documentation that Barack Obama could then use to overthrow the United States government. (2 min video at link)

Hillary's presidential campaign and the DNC funded the creation of the fake 'dossier' and Barry Sotero directed his admin to build a case on it (Crossfire Hurricane). It was actually Soros who directed Barry to investigate Trump. Barry's DOJ knew the dossier was fake and lied to the FISA courts to get FISA warrants in order to wiretap the Trump campaign, and anyone near Trump. They all knew Hillary's fake dossier was the basis of the FISAs and the Crossfire Hurricane 'investigation'. They always knew.

They both need to be tried for treason.

Hillary Clinton spent $10 million

Hillary may have spent it, but she didn't earn it herself, except perhaps by working at bribery and kickbacks.

It's AI. You can tell because Hillary doesn't look rage-filled and seems to have styled her hair.

https://x.com/BrianLaReau805/status/2005733773082849379

Yep. This was an attempt at an overthrow of the United States government. Been saying that since it happened.

Had a bad day, feeling lucky...

How is it that only Hillary gets mentioned when everyone knows that she’s married to Bill Clinton? WTF, did she act alone? I don’t think so.

She’s already had practice wearing striped pants.

“They always knew.”

*************

Yet not a single related arrest.

EWWWWWWWWWWW

no cankles, so obviously fake................

This is a CNN article from three years ago—I wouldn’t be surprised if @HillaryClinton could be indicted and finally had to answer some of these questions about the Russia collusion narrative and this dossier.”

I would not only be surprised, I would be down right astonished.

This isn't in Bondi's jurisdiction yet. DNI Tulsi Gabbard is the one taking the lead at the moment.

Bondi was using the prosecution of James Comey as the first crack in the door, because Comey was the lowest-level leadership involved in the crime. Bondi was using Comey's testimony before Congress to pursue perjury charges in the hope that:

Evidence introduced at trial would be used in future trials against higher-ups.
If convicted, Comey would be offered limited immunity to testify against the others to avoid a prison term.

However, a liberal district court judge threw out the case, not on the merits, but on the expired appointment of the prosecutor, which then let the statute of limitations for Comey to expire. Bondi is appealing to have the case restored.

The scheme that the judge is using to protect Comey goes like this:

The Democrats have been blocking President Trump's appointments just like they did in 2017 (and even like they did to Bush in 2000 until 9/11 happened). Here we are in December and he still doesn't have his administration fully filled out. Senate Democrats have imposed an unprecedented blanket hold on all 93 U.S. Attorney nominees. Dick Durbin explicitly objected to Chuck Grassley's unanimous consent requests, blocking even nominees supported by their home-state Democratic senators.
The reason that President Trump has to appoint "interim" or "acting" prosecutors is that the Democrats are purposely stalling the confirmation of the permanent positions. They want to keep the seat vacant so that the judges can use the vacancies to void prosecutions whenver an "acting" prosecutor's term expires.
The Democrats have created a vicious circle: Block permanent appointment -> President appoints "interim"(120 day) officeholder -> temporary term expires -> Trump appoints a new "acting" officeholder (210 day term) -> acting term expires -> Trump does what???
The courts are now rejecting future appointments, resulting in the prosecutor being vacant and the court now gets to choose the prosecutor it wants!

This is becoming judicial tyranny on the grounds laid down by the Democrats by creating permanent vacancies that can never be filled. This gives the District Court judges, who are already hostile to Donald Trump, the legal cover they need to keep making these rulings. The court is showing no interest in considering deference to the Executive who must keep his Department of Justice operating when the Senate is obstructing his confirmations.

The Senate blocks the President, the clock runs out, and the Court legally "usurps" the appointment power. By doing this, they are making it impossible to prosecute anyone in a blue state.

-PJ

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi

Hillary Clinton personally approved plan to share Trump-Russia allegation with the press in 2016, campaign manager says
Marshall Cohen
By Marshall Cohen, CNN
4 min read
Updated 6:20 PM EDT, Fri May 20, 2022

Hillary Clinton personally approved her campaign’s plans in fall 2016 to share information with a reporter about an uncorroborated alleged server backchannel between Donald Trump and a top Russian bank, her former campaign manager testified Friday in federal court.

Robby Mook said he attended a meeting with other senior campaign officials where they learned about strange cyberactivity that suggested a relationship between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which is based in Moscow. The group decided to share the information with a reporter, and Mook subsequently ran that decision by Clinton herself.

“We discussed it with Hillary,” Mook said, later adding that “she agreed with the decision.”

A campaign staffer later passed the information to a reporter from Slate magazine, which the campaign hoped the reporter would “vet it out, and write what they believe is true,” Mook said.

Slate published a story on October 31, 2016, raising questions about the odd Trump-Alfa cyber links. After that story came out, Clinton tweeted about it, and posted a news release that said, “This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia.”

The testimony came in the criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who is being prosecuted by the Trump-era special counsel John Durham. Durham is investigating potential misconduct tied to the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe. The trial has shed light on the dark arts of political opposition research – and how campaigns dig up dirt and plant stories in the press.

Federal investigators ultimately concluded there weren’t any improper Trump-Alfa cyber links.

Clinton officials say they didn’t authorize FBI meeting
Sussmann passed along the same information about Trump and Alfa Bank to an FBI official in September 2016. Prosecutors charged him with lying to the FBI and allege that he falsely told the FBI official that he wasn’t there for a client, even though he was there on Clinton’s behalf.

He has pleaded not guilty and maintains that he went “to help the FBI” as a concerned citizen, and that the Clinton campaign wouldn’t have wanted him to meet with the FBI in the first place.

Mook and another top Clinton campaign official, general counsel Marc Elias, reinforced that assertion this week on the witness stand. They both testified they didn’t authorize or direct Sussmann to go to the FBI with the explosive Trump tip. Mook said Friday that he didn’t even know who Sussmann was during the 2016 campaign, and would’ve opposed an FBI meeting.

“Going to the FBI does not seem like an effective way to get information out to the public,” Mook said. “You do that through the media, which is why the information was shared with the media.”

Earlier in the week, Elias told the jury that he didn’t authorize Sussmann’s meeting with the FBI, which occurred on September 19, 2016. Elias said he hadn’t learned about the fateful meeting between Sussmann and then-FBI General Counsel James Baker until Sussmann was indicted.

In addition to going to the FBI, Sussmann provided the technical internet data to a reporter from The New York Times, who was working on a story that the FBI spiked after learning about it from Sussmann. A staffer from Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign, testified that she met with a Slate reporter to discuss the Trump-Alfa allegations.

Testimony from witnesses suggested the media outreach wasn’t closely coordinated, though the situation isn’t fully clear. Mook said he didn’t know about Perkins Coie, the law firm where Sussmann and Elias worked, “playing a role with us sharing the information with the media.”

Old Clinton tweet spurs online reaction

Inside the courtroom, prosecutors showed the jury Clinton’s tweet about the Trump-Alfa article from Slate, and Mook read aloud portions of the campaign’s news release about the story. The release was from Jake Sullivan, who is currently President Joe Biden’s national security adviser.

“We can only assume that 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,” Sullivan said in the release on October 31, 2016, one week before Election Day.

The special counsel team has previously said that the Clinton campaign’s media blitz around the Slate story “is the very culmination of Mr. Sussmann’s work and strategy,” to allegedly gin up news coverage about the Trump-Alfa allegations and then get the FBI to start an investigation.

During the hearing, Twitter users recirculated Clinton’s old post. It caught the eye of billionaire Elon Musk, who has become increasingly vocal about political matters while he tries to buy Twitter, and recently announced his support for the Republican Party. He called the Trump-Alfa allegation “a Clinton campaign hoax” and claimed that Sussmann “created an elaborate hoax.”

Sussmann’s lawyers declined to comment to CNN about Musk’s tweets.

There is no evidence to support Musk’s claim that Sussmann or the Clinton campaign peddled information they knew was untrue. Multiple witnesses testified that respected cyber experts harbored genuine national security concerns about the data. Sussmann’s lawyers repeatedly said he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the material when he provided it to the FBI.

This story has been updated with additional details Friday.

CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report.

Here’s the Politico slant on the same story:

* * *
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/20/clinton-campaign-manager-denies-approving-passing-anti-trump-info-to-fbi-00034115

Clinton 2016 campaign manager denies approving passing anti-Trump info to FBI
Robby Mook told jurors that he would have opposed taking the allegations to the FBI because the campaign had no faith in the bureau after the FBI’s then-director James Comey publicly blasted Clinton.

By Josh Gerstein and Kelly Hooper
05/20/2022 01:14 PM EDT

The manager of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential bid, Robby Mook, testified Friday that the campaign did not instruct or authorize a lawyer to go to the FBI with claims of a potential data link between then-candidate Donald Trump and a Russian bank owned by allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

That lawyer — former Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann — is on trial in federal court in Washington on a felony false-statement charge brought by special counsel John Durham, who claims Sussmann lied to the FBI when he said he was not acting on behalf of any client in relaying indications and internet data stream between a Trump-related server and one for Moscow-based Alfa Bank.

Called as a witness by Sussmann’s defense, Mook told jurors that he would have vigorously opposed taking the allegations to the FBI because the campaign had no faith in the bureau after the FBI’s then-director James Comey publicly blasted Clinton as he closed an investigation into her use of a private email account when she served as secretary of State.

Asked if he would have favored handing the server information to the FBI, Mook said: “Absolutely not.”

“We did not trust them,” the Clinton campaign manager said of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency. “Two or three of probably the most damaging days of the campaign were caused by James Comey, not by Donald Trump. ... We just did not want to have anything to do with the organization at that time.”

Mook said he had no knowledge of Clinton approving Sussmann to go to the FBI with the server information on behalf of the campaign.

“I don’t see why she would,” he said.

Mook confirmed that top campaign officials were aware of the Alfa Bank “secret server” allegations in the summer and fall of 2016, but said they favored handing them off to a reporter.

“Going to the FBI does not seem like a very effective way to get that information out to the public. We do that through the media,” he said.

Mook said that after discussions at the highest levels of the campaign, they decided to do just that. He also said that somewhere around that time he informed Clinton personally and she concurred.

“I discussed it with Hillary as well,” Mook said. “She agreed to that. ... She thought we made the right decision.”

During cross-examination, prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis seemed to suggest that it was reckless or underhanded for the campaign to relay the server allegations to a journalist without having fully explored them.

“You didn’t gather any details about the technical aspects of the data yourself?” DeFilippis asked.

“No. That was part of the issue: We didn’t have any subject matter expertise,” Mook said. “Part of the point of giving it to a reporter was that they could run it down further.”

The prosecution’s opening statement to the jury described Sussmann’s approach to the FBI as part of an attempt by the Clinton campaign to create an “October Surprise” that could devastate Trump, but Mook said the campaign didn’t view the server claims as that impactful.

“It was one of many pieces of information that we had. ... Every day, Donald Trump was saying things about Putin, saying things about Russia,” Mook said. “I don’t think we saw it as this silver bullet that was going to conclude the campaign and determine the outcome.”

However, Mook said the idea of a secret communications channel between Trump and Russia was disturbing, if true.

“We thought this was highly suspect, and if it was something troubling, then we wanted the public to know about it,” Mook said. “It was certainly alarming and suspicious. The issue was we didn’t know what this data going back and forth was.”

Jurors have already heard testimony that top cyber experts at the FBI quickly concluded that the purported evidence of a link between a Trump server and the Russian bank didn’t establish or even strongly suggest such a connection, although the FBI opened a formal investigation into the matter anyway. Prosecutors say the internet traffic at issue appears to have been caused by a server sending out marketing emails.

Mook also testified that during the campaign some opposition research work was done through the Clinton campaign’s law firm, Perkins Coie, where Sussmann worked along with the campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias.

“Opposition research on Donald Trump was really complicated,” the former campaign chief said. “He was incredibly litigious, so there was a lot of work to be done around different lawsuits that he filed or had been filed against him. ... Understanding what was a very opaque web of businesses internationally was incredibly complex. And so that piece of the work was assigned to Perkins Coie.”

However, Mook said he didn’t know during the campaign a private investigation firm called Fusion GPS was doing opposition research for Hillary’s bid through the law firm

“I was not aware during the campaign of anyone they were engaging to do that work,” Mook said. “I did not know that they had been retained.”

Because of a scheduled trip overseas, Mook appeared as a defense witness even though the prosecution is still in the middle of its case. Prosecutors objected to the out-of-sequence testimony, but Judge Christopher Cooper said he would permit it to allow Mook to take his trip.

Jurors also heard Friday from two former CIA officers who were involved in Sussmann’s efforts to relay information about alleged Trump computer links with Russia. Both men were called as prosecution witnesses to buttress claims by Durham’s team that Sussmann continued to dissemble about his clients in interactions with government officials, although the single criminal charge against him stems only from his statements during a September 2016 meeting at the FBI.

One of the ex-CIA employees, Mark Chadason, said Sussmann indicated he wanted to share information about Trump with the spy agency on behalf of an unnamed client. Chadason said he pushed Sussmann for more information about his unnamed client and elicited that the client was a Republican and an engineer who either worked or had worked in the intelligence community.

However, another former CIA officer, referred to as Kevin P., said Sussmann insisted at a February 2017 meeting that he was not coming on behalf of any client. Some of the CIA’s emails and memos surrounding the episode refer to Sussmann’s clients as the ones who prepared the data he shared, while others reflect him denying he was acting for the clients in approaching the CIA.

One draft memo said Sussmann indicated he was dissatisfied with how the FBI had handled “similar, but unrelated” information he took them. The CIA deleted that “value judgment” from its report before forwarding it on to the FBI, Kevin P. testified.

“To deal with these issues, [Sussmann] wanted sophisticated technical resources which the FBI did not have, according to Mr. Sussmann,” Chadason testified.

Chadason said his feeling at the time was that the information Sussmann had was interesting enough to pass along to his former colleagues at the CIA — and that “the source was credible enough to pass it on” — but one email sent to CIA officials warned of the lawyer’s Democratic Party ties.

“Please remember this guy is a partisan lawyer who works closely with DNC. So I am not sure what the real story here is, but I am sure you guys will figure it out,” Chadason wrote in the email.

Earlier Friday, the former FBI official Sussmann met with to hand off the Alfa Bank allegations in September 2016, then-general counsel James Baker, completed his testimony, which began on Wednesday and stretched through the entire court session Thursday.

Defense attorney Sean Berkowitz questioned Baker about various anomalies in the FBI’s handling of the investigation. He noted that an FBI memo formally opening a counterintelligence investigation into the allegations Sussmann brought forward, just four days after he did so, said the information about the server was referred from the Justice Department.

“That makes no sense to me,” Baker said. “I did not receive the information from the Department of Justice. I got it from Michael.”

The defense’s repeated questions about inconsistencies in Baker’s statements and in FBI records seem aimed at generating reasonable doubt among jurors about Baker’s recollections from the September 2016 meeting and about the FBI’s overall approach to the case.

Prosecutors have indicated they expect to wrap up their case Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. It’s unclear how many witnesses the defense plans to call, but among them is a New York Times reporter who investigated the Alfa Bank allegations, Eric Lichtblau. Prosecutors and Lichtblau are wrangling over the scope of his testimony, with Durham’s team arguing that if Lichtblau takes the stand they should be permitted to question him about any aspect of his reporting.

Lichtblau’s attorneys have asked Cooper to limit the reporter’s testimony to his dealings with Sussmann, who has waived confidentiality with the journalist on that issue. Cooper, an appointee of President Barack Obama, has yet to rule on that request.

“The issues are a little tricky,” the judge said as he left the bench Friday afternoon.

This crap needs to be stopped by sendingʻ all these cases to military tribunals on the grounds that the civilian courts are non-functioning

“It’s AI. You can tell because Hillary doesn’t look rage-filled and seems to have styled her hair.”

Of course it is AI. Hillary “Cankles” Clinton CAN NOT cross her legs!!