Day 1 of the Michael Sussmann trial is a wrap. It started with disclosure by Special Counsel DeFilippis informing the Court that government witness Dr. Manos Antonakakis (identified as Researcher-1 in the Sussmann indictment) “has decided to invoke his Fifth Amendment right.” He would not be called to the stand. More background on Manos
I wished the prosecution had followed up with Martin and pressed a bit harder ... If the allegations weren’t supported by the data, then what was the data telling you (I.e. deliberate fraud)
Isn’t there an issue with the judge? And now Clintonites on the jury? If true, the trial is nothing more than show trial, with a not guilty verdict. Nothing to see here, move on people. I hope I’m wrong. Thanks for the work you do.
Why is obviously irritating is that the FBI let the lie grow in the media. If they had politics injected their work, they need to with a simple release state that no proof is found and debunk. It just festered within Congress and the PR wing of the Dems - the media.
May 18, 2022·edited May 18, 2022Liked by Techno Fog
Yep, and right before the eve/even I believe you have called Sussmann "Joffe". The clients, the Hillary campaign and Joffe, are stated correctly. Should be "She elaborated that Sussmann..."?
I always go back to the beginning when all this treachery first started and ask why the FBI didn’t go to Trump to tell him that there is some shenanigans going on. For that reason alone should indicate there was collusion between certain government agents and agents who did not want Trump president.
It may be of interest to the commenters that Durham has never lost a case. He builds airtight prosecutions and I’m betting he will drop a good nugget undermining the defense sometime late in the trial.
Love: "Special Counsel Brittain Shaw made clear that this case is “about privilege: the privilege of a well-connected D.C. lawyer with access to the highest levels of the FBI; the privilege of a lawyer who thought that he could lie to the FBI without consequences.” Using that privilege, Sussmann:
“went straight to the FBI general counsel's office, the FBI's top lawyer. He then sat across from that lawyer and lied to him. He told a lie that was designed to achieve a political end, a lie that was designed to inject the FBI into a presidential election.”
Respectfully, while we get buried in minutia, it sounds like the Democrat jury is already bored. Unaddressed elephants in the room:
1. High potential for effectively another OJ jury.
2. It appears Durham has undercharged Sussman, and no charges for Joffe, Georgia Tech researchers (collaborators), etc.
3. "Hopium" might say Durham is still collecting critical evidence; dozens of emails here; 1500 there; and the Sussman case is bringing forth more critical evidence.
4. Is Durham dramatically understaffed?
There's an old saying in football: Looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane.
Does Durham not have the chops to actually file Conspiracy charges?
Do I have this pattern correct?
Clinesmith undercharged.
Sussman undercharged.
Joffe not charged.
Georgia Tech researchers not charged.
Conspiracy not charged, though bandied about dozens of times.
What needs to happen for Durham to play like Tarzan?
P.S. Is this televised? Any picture of Team Durham's female attorney (Marsha Clarke 2.0)?
I wished the prosecution had followed up with Martin and pressed a bit harder ... If the allegations weren’t supported by the data, then what was the data telling you (I.e. deliberate fraud)
Isn’t there an issue with the judge? And now Clintonites on the jury? If true, the trial is nothing more than show trial, with a not guilty verdict. Nothing to see here, move on people. I hope I’m wrong. Thanks for the work you do.
Why is obviously irritating is that the FBI let the lie grow in the media. If they had politics injected their work, they need to with a simple release state that no proof is found and debunk. It just festered within Congress and the PR wing of the Dems - the media.
Thank you Technofog for breaking this down. Can’t wait for you to break down the afternoon transcript.!!
Thank you!! You're the reason I'm following closely, I know I'll get the truth. Your commentary is great and a trusted source!
Typo in the quote, “to create an October surprise on the eve[] of the presidential election.”
Yep, and right before the eve/even I believe you have called Sussmann "Joffe". The clients, the Hillary campaign and Joffe, are stated correctly. Should be "She elaborated that Sussmann..."?
Susseman "duped" the FBI? LOLOLOLOL...they were in on it.
I’ve been looking for an update on the trial…. Thanks so much Techno… you’re hard work and reveals are greatly appreciated by Patriots!
Nice write up Techno! I am very excited for day two also!
I always go back to the beginning when all this treachery first started and ask why the FBI didn’t go to Trump to tell him that there is some shenanigans going on. For that reason alone should indicate there was collusion between certain government agents and agents who did not want Trump president.
Does tech guy get off the hook by invoking the 5th?
It may be of interest to the commenters that Durham has never lost a case. He builds airtight prosecutions and I’m betting he will drop a good nugget undermining the defense sometime late in the trial.
Edge. Of. My. Seat.
Rock on, Techno Fog.
Rock on!
Love: "Special Counsel Brittain Shaw made clear that this case is “about privilege: the privilege of a well-connected D.C. lawyer with access to the highest levels of the FBI; the privilege of a lawyer who thought that he could lie to the FBI without consequences.” Using that privilege, Sussmann:
“went straight to the FBI general counsel's office, the FBI's top lawyer. He then sat across from that lawyer and lied to him. He told a lie that was designed to achieve a political end, a lie that was designed to inject the FBI into a presidential election.”
Respectfully, while we get buried in minutia, it sounds like the Democrat jury is already bored. Unaddressed elephants in the room:
1. High potential for effectively another OJ jury.
2. It appears Durham has undercharged Sussman, and no charges for Joffe, Georgia Tech researchers (collaborators), etc.
3. "Hopium" might say Durham is still collecting critical evidence; dozens of emails here; 1500 there; and the Sussman case is bringing forth more critical evidence.
4. Is Durham dramatically understaffed?
There's an old saying in football: Looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane.
Does Durham not have the chops to actually file Conspiracy charges?
Do I have this pattern correct?
Clinesmith undercharged.
Sussman undercharged.
Joffe not charged.
Georgia Tech researchers not charged.
Conspiracy not charged, though bandied about dozens of times.
What needs to happen for Durham to play like Tarzan?
P.S. Is this televised? Any picture of Team Durham's female attorney (Marsha Clarke 2.0)?