Posted on 05/19/2022 5:09:09 AM PDT by janetjanet998
SarahNLynch of Reuters is live tweeting
James Baker will be back on the stand
On redirect, Mook says he didn’t view Alfa Bank allegations as an “October Surprise.”
He says there were a lot of stories about Trump and Russia and he thought “this might be one of many.”
Replying to
@adamgoldmanNYT
@Slate
and
@nytimes
Bosworth making point thru his questions that if this was an October Surprise then why wasnt the FBI’s Alfa Bank investigation in the Slate article, thus making it even more damning?
Mook said top staffers — John Podesta, Marc Elias, Jennifer Palmieri, Jake Sullivan — did not want the allegations turned over to the FBI because they weren’t “totally confident” in its veracity.
Mook said: “We decided to give it to a reporter so the reporter could run it down. Our hope was they (media) were going to run it down, that it would be substantive, and accurate.
If your statement that "Major theme of DeFilippis cross is that Mook delegated work to Marc Elias and others..." is true, then that's enough to prove that Elias and Sussmann were providing services to the Clinton campaign.
Once the direct working relationship between Elias, Sussmann, Perkins Coie, and FusionGPS is proven, then that implicates the Clinton campaign as being a part of the larger conspiracy to spread the Russia collusion hoax that includes the fake dossier, the perjured FISA warrants, and the illegal spying on Trump campaign staffers.
I think that's what Durham is trying to prove here, the link between Sussmann and the Clinton campaign, so that he can then use that link to dig into what the Clinton campaign's involvement actually was, and how Obama's FBI became so compliant toward the Clinton campaign objectives.
-PJ
Bingo!!!
well...that's one count of perjury right there. I'll bet you 10 shares of Orville Redenbacher company that Durham has proof otherwise!
You got it.
This is much more than the trial of Sussman. It’s both laying the groundwork for further investigation and perjury traps all around.
Why would a lawyer make such a statement though? He knows it is hearsay!
Quick summary of what should be the biggest political news story in the history of this country:
In sworn testimony today, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robbie Mook, revealed that Hillary personally green-lighted the spreading of disinformation implicating Trump that they all knew to be false (they made it up) to the media, who probably knew it was false, though their idiot viewers did not.
The FBI, who also knew the information was false, used the subsequent knowingly-dishonest media reports, along with fake data provided by the Clinton campaign, to illegally obtain FISA warrants from corrupt or stupid federal judges and spy on the Trump campaign, and anybody who came in contact with them, for Hillary Clinton.
And the bitch still lost.
They then used the same cycle of false information to shackle the Trump Administration in endless, expensive and inevitably fruitless investigations.
And he still was the best President ever.
Well said.
I have my doubts that Sussmann will be found guilty by a jury of Hillary voters and donors, but at least Durham has exposed the truth regarding the 2+ years of lies, by the Clinton Campaign, the FBI and the media. The Clinton jury will no doubt think it their civic duty to acquit Sussmann, but it must be painful for them to hear over and over again, how the Clinton Campaign, the FBI and the media lied to them for so long and they naively believed the lies!
witness for the prosecution is Mark Chadason, a former CIA employee.
Chadason spoke with Sussmann in January 2017. The two had breakfast in NOVA. Sussmann said he wanted to meet about allegations against Trump. Sussman wanted to have a meeting with CIA official.
Sussmann told Chadason he was there on behalf of a client. Sussmann told Chadason he spoken to Mr. Baker. After meeting, Chadason wrote down his notes and called a senior officer at the CIA.
Adam Goldman
@adamgoldmanNYT
Chadason’s notes from the meeting: “Sussmann said that he represents a clinet who does not want to be known but had some interesting information....Sussmann would not provide client’s identity and was not sure if the client would reveal himself to the CIA.
We will see. Bookmarking for possible free bowl of claim chowder
LOL!
LOLL!!!!!!
Hahahahahahah!!!!!!!
·
18s
Replying to
@adamgoldmanNYT
“Sussmann said his client would most likely provide the data to senior bona fide CIA officers (active duty) and if there is no interest, he would most likely go to New York Times,” according to Chadason’s memo.
“Lastly Sussmann said that as an experienced attorney with full clearances and lots of IC experience he see lots of quacks and unsubstantial allegations etc., and based on his experience he believes that this client is telling the truth as he knows it,” Chadason wrote.
Andrew Goudsward
@AGoudsward
Chadason’s notes of the convo say Sussmann had client with Alfa Bank info but that client didn’t want to go to FBI bc FBI didn’t have resources to deal with it and/or client didn’t trust FBI
Per notes, Sussmann said client was prepared to go to NYT if CIA wasn’t interested.
Andrew Goudsward
@AGoudsward
On cross examination, defense is highlighting portions of Chadason’s notes where Chadason wrote CLIENT in all caps
interesting
John Haughey
@JFHaughey58
·
1m
During that meeting, Sussmann said he was representing a client, “an engineer with a number of patents” and “a Republican,” who “had some allegations against President Trump that he wanted me to hear.”
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.