[MtnClimber]

This just shows what happens when leftists gain government power. It should be taught in school as a cautionary tale.

[Callnote]

Pretty sure the DNC and Hilary got thrown under the bus yesterday , seemed like it in the transcripts .

[KeyLargo]

BELIEVE NOTHING. Just a Show Trial.

[McCarthysGhost]

The crime was not a candidate releasing untrue information. The crime was our government law enforcement agencies engaging in illegal acts on behalf of that campaign, violating the civil rights of many Americans.

[maddog55]

Nothing will happen here. It’s a show trial... the jury is full of leftist Clinton supporters.

[HandBasketHell]

Doesn't matter what I think.

The DC leftard jury will acquit.

[Fireone]

“So far, that hasn’t happened.”
That you know of. How can you be so sure? Are you reading Durham’s notes, as he writes them? Do you share pillow talk with Durham?
That’s a very broad assumption on your part.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Lying to the FBI who says, “Lie to me!” is no crime. Prosecutorial discretion under a corrupt DOJ will see to that.

[mfish13]

3 Hillary supporters amd one AOC supporter on the jury. No conviction.

[thinden]

Most likely Durham's game plan was never to convict Sussman on this claim at trial, but rather use it to get him to turn on others, most notably Hillary herself. So far, that hasn't happened.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

interesting point

as it stands to me today, it just looks like dirty politics.

goes on every day

hopefully this trial & the durham investigation will lead exposing evidence to the obviously criminal acts of sedition, espionage, treason, murders, RICO, FISA fraud, benghazi, child trafficking

[PGR88]

This is a whitewash for the FBI. They needed cheap cover to begin spying on Trump and Sussmann was the chump who gave it to them.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

They never thought they would get caught, and thought they were being extra clever by saying, “not behalf of any client “.

[T Ruth]

Most likely is that in an oral conversation with Sussman before the meeting Baker told Sussman that he could have the meeting if he would state in writing that he was not representing any client in coming forward. That would give the FBI plausible deniability, and without a document no lawyer at a trial would ever get either Baker or Sussman to admit that such a conversation occurred.

If this were the way that Sussmann's representation got made, Sussmann would have pled entrapment as a defense -- unless he was dead certain that with an Obama judge and a DC jury he would get off anyway. He probably will get off for those reasons, but given how corrupt and duplicitous all of DC is, it is a real risk to put all of your eggs in that one basket.

Therefore, on balance, I think it is not likely that Baker told Sussmann in effect: 'I will meet with you if you will lie to me in writing about the reason for the meeting.' To a snake like Sussmann, that would have shot up red flags like fireworks.

[TiGuy22]

I think Sussman goes down for lying, only, as the sacrificial lamb, but nobody else.