Posted on 04/05/2022 10:22:19 AM PDT by rktman
On Monday night, special counsel John Durham released what could be the smoking gun in the case against Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann in his investigation of Russiagate. According to newly published documents, Sussman, who was indicted last September for concealing his clients, messaged the FBI general counsel on Sept. 18, 2016, and said unambiguously that he was not working for any client while he was, in fact, working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Sussmann’s lawyers claimed last year that the charges against their client were false and that they were made based on an unsubstantiated verbal statement.
“The Special Counsel has brought a false statement charge on the basis of a purported oral statement made over five years ago for which there is only a single witness, Mr. Baker; for which there is no recording; and for which there are no contemporaneous notes by anyone who was actually in the meeting,” Sussmann’s lawyers alleged at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
If you were confident about whatever your real position is, you wouldn’t have such an emotional reaction.
Stop going after the one patriot doing what no one else has been willing to do!
SMOKING GUN! BOMBSHELL! BREAKING NEWS!
_______________________________________
And not to forget- WILL SHOCK THE CONCIENSE!
This isn’t a video game.
It’s the real life deep state. Not like picking weeds in your flower garden either.
A better analogy would be uprooting a grove of oak trees with your bare hands.
Put down the hotpockets, have some courage and start supporting John Durham!
I can grasp that Durham has been at it for over four years now, and we have seen what, one count come out of his office?
I trust Durham as much as I trust Bill Barr.
Can YOU grasp the difference?
“It’s done all the time by the scoundrels.”
Well, what is done is to use the illegal surveillance to find evidence, but then to also acquire the same evidence through legal means, so that it can be admissible. Which is still quite a dirty trick, but as long as the court does not know that the evidence was originally acquired illegally, it will not block the evidence.
Sounds like you're the kind of person who carries a white flag in his back pocket so you can surrender first...
How many years has it been? He never seems to be done investigating and is forgotten. Too many people hoped for more than has been delivered.
“If you were confident about whatever your real position is, you wouldn’t have such an emotional reaction.”
You project and condescend, you’ve been around too many liberals. If you had approached me rationally, I could have elaborated. However, elaboration would be lost on you, as would any further exchange.
You many continue on with your insults.
“How many years has it been? He never seems to be done investigating and is forgotten. Too many people hoped for more than has been delivered.”
And yet, there are people here attacking me because I dare say something about “one of the few that is doing something”.
Yeah, he’s doing something. Getting a fat government paycheck for plodding along on something that will produce nothing more than indictments on a couple mid-level fall guys. So worth it, right?
“how certain are you that a prosecutor who dips into the NSA’s capacious urn always retrieves illegally obtained information/documentation...”
Pretty certain, since warrantless domestic wiretapping is forbidden by the 4th amendment, and the courts have upheld that over and over again.
“Are there on point federal laws or Article III judicial decisions to which you can cite, relating specifically to the NSA’s domestically-retained data?”
Federal laws are irrelevant, since if they are in conflict with the 4th amendment (as they necessarily would be to allow a search and seizure without a warrant), then they are invalidated. As for judicial decisions, all you really need is Katz vs. US 1967.
thx rktman, additional:
Text confirms Hillary’s ‘conspiracy’ to steal election, says special counsel
WND | Apr 5, 2022 | Art Moore
Posted on 4/5/2022, 3:37:35 PM by Conservat1
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4052551/posts
>>(it’s not that the Ivies made them smart - the Ivies are a filtering mechanism - you don’t get there without major league smarts).
While I believe that was true once upon a time, I’m not sure that it still is. Interestingly, MIT recently quietly said “OK, we’re going to start using SATs and ACTs again.” I sort of doubt the rest of the Ivies are, esp for non-Asian POC. And I bet it wasn’t working out well for MIT when unprepared POCs hit tech university level Calculus (especially multivariable), Chemistry, Physics and the like.
Personally, I wouldn’t hire a recent Ivy grad for anything, and think we need to start intellectually diversifying government hires away from the Ivies.
The walls are closing in!!!
Why would you have an attitude against Durham?
Makes no sense!
I’ll explain it to you.
The left will never get Trump because there’s nothing on him.
We will get Clinton because she committed massive, countless crimes.
If your life is heavily influenced by video games or movies, you won’t understand time as it unfolds in the real world.
As a result Durham’s steady pace will cause you to whine and cry.
“The criminals now in charge believe government is empowered in perpetuity and ANY challenge is sedition.”
This.
LOL!.
Amazing, isn’t it? “Dual track’’. You’re right.
You just made me realize something.
Have we ever gotten it right in America? I mean the whole system. Everything from The Revolution itself, The Confederacy, The Civil War, The Klan, home grown(and imported) American Nazis, BLM and Antifa.
Most of all of that was created by the Democrats.
I think The Founders knew there was the potential and the likely hood this would all fall apart some day if we either voted ourselves money as Franklin warned or if you attempted to negate The Second Amendment and disarm the people as Madison feared.
In the modern era Milton Friedman , one of the greatest economists ever warned against creating a welfare nation and allowing unfettered immigration into it.
Winston Churchill once said “The Americans will always do the right after they’ve tried everything else’’.
I hope so.
Clinesmith pled guilty. Did he cooperate with Durham to get such light treatment?
Did Baker KNOW that Sussman was lying at the time of their conversation? Is Baker cooperating with Durham?
Is Durham's indictment and prosecution of Sussman designed to motivate Sussman to cooperate?
I think most on this forum view what happened to Trump as the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy involving many, many dozens, if not hundreds, of past and present federal employees. The soldiers in such a conspiracy must be motivated to testify against their generals.
The statute of limitations on federal conspiracy is, I believe, five years. Somebody help me here. If a conspirator commits the crime of lying to a federal agent in furtherance of the conspiracy, does that restart the five years? I don't know but it sounds reasonable to me.
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.