Posted on 03/07/2022 9:06:38 AM PST by blam
Edited on 03/07/2022 10:12:35 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Special Counsel John Durham on March 4 told a federal judge not to dismiss a charge against a lawyer who lied to the FBI about representing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Michael Sussman was representing the Clinton campaign when in 2016 he passed along information to an FBI counsel. His lawyers say the documents “raised national security concerns” while prosecutors describe them as purportedly detailing a covert channel between a Russian bank and the business of Donald Trump, Clinton’s rival at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at zububrothers.com ...
Sussman leads to Marc Elias, Elias to Biden and Hillary. Obama appointee or not, this judge is likely to get a fish on her doorstep or some other mob warning just to make sure she dismisses the case.
How long did it take Durham to name Sussmann? About 2 years? And after all that time, all that work to get ONE person, the judge may dismiss the case.
I hope I'm wrong. I wish Durham the best of luck but I'm a realist. This is dragging out to the point it's not going to matter.
I, too, hope that Durham Perseveres and Prevails.
I believe she, Judge Beryl Howel, will dismiss. Not for any other reason then she is a committed team player for the Democrats, and especially for Obama.
Durham had to respond, so he said that the case should not be dismissed, and gave his reasons as to why it should not be dismissed. I contend she will dismiss the charges anyway, because she is an Obama lackey.
Now, had Trump been charged with the same thing, she would have thrown the book at him.
You tell the judge in his chambers that he can be investigated too…..
Judges can be investigated too…..
Democrat Judges are as corrupt as the corrupt Dems. You never want a corrupt Dem judge to make a call that effects you.
“Why would they dismiss the charge? They’d lock us up for lying to the feds.”
Are you serious?? Haven’t been paying attention? Liberals don’t go to jail. Only conservatives.
No, he is warning the Judge that the charges are extremely serious, he may have swayed an election, and there is more to it. More to come.
Yes, Durham was responding to Sussman's motion to dismiss the charge because his lie to the FIB was not 'material' to the FIB's decision to open a case based on the Steele Dossier.
Durham argued that the point of the lie being material or immaterial should be decided by a jury at trial, not by a pretrial motion, and cited precedents.
The Hoover FIB would have shown the judge photographs of him leaving a seedy motel with a woman not his wife...
This was a claim that Trump was supposedly communicating to a Russian bank, Alfa-Bank. He claimed he was reporting like a good responsible citizen, and that he had no client involved in what he was communicating.
You are also wrong that it was not material at all.
Furthermore, his rebuttal argument for not dismissing the case, had nothing to do with letting a jury decide. It was about the fact that if he had been honest about who he was working for, the Clinton campaign, then it would have likely not resulted in an FBI investigation.
The Odd Projection by the Steele Dossier’s Claimed Alfa Bank Source
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.