Day 2 of the Michael Sussmann trial started with some housekeeping. Here are the rulings of note: Robby Mook, who has a scheduled vacation in Spain, will testify on Friday. He’s a defense witness. Evidence of Steele’s meetings with Sussmann and Fusion GPS in July 2016, and his tasking to conduct research on Alfa Bank, according to the judge,
Thank you Techno Fog for the daily recaps from the trial! I am hoping that Durham can get a conviction, but the deck is stacked against him. Trial location in which the overwhelming majority voted for a Democratic candidate, Democratic appointed Judge, and Jurors that donated to Hillary. It would be nice with everything against him to pull out a conviction right before the elections.
According to a piece at Jonathan Turley's website this morning, Baker was asked about his being VERY LATE in turning over the text message in which Sussman lied in writing, where Sussman said that he wasn't representing a client when coming to the FBI (although he billed Hillary for the meeting --- LOL), and Baker's response was;
“It’s frankly — I’m not out to get Michael and this is not my investigation. This is your investigation.”
He should be disbarred and investigated and prosecuted just based on that answer alone. He had been lead counsel for the FBI when the incident occurred, AND he's an officer of the court. He was in possession of material evidence and intentionally played a game with the special counsel AND Congress (back when he testified about these matters) by withholding material evidence.
Baker's avowed notion that criminal investigation and prosecution is based upon being "out to get" someone, as opposed to be a matter of enforcement of the law, is an admission of his own corrupt mentality. But instead of getting disbarred, these are the types of people that the Bar Association seems to PREFER practice law in America.
At this point, all I’m doing is praying. Up is Down, Right is Left & everything stinks of corruption. I’m really hoping Durham isn’t compromised.??????
According to a report at the Fox website this evening (take that for what it's worth), Sussman's lawyer asked Marc Elias (Sussman's previous associate at Perkins Coie) "whether Sussmann went to the FBI in September 2016 with data alleging a covert communications channel between Donald Trump and Russia’s Alfa Bank on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign" and Elias answered, "I think you’d have to ask Mr. Sussmann."
Based upon that exchange between Sussman's lawyer and Sussman's former associate, Sussman's lawyer is asking (or going to ask) for a mistrial.
LOL LOL LOL
Wouldn't THAT be a neat trick, if a defendant's lawyer could ask a defendant's associate a question and use that to get a mistrial?
Apparently Judge Cooper wasn't impressed, and responded, "I am not inclined to grant a mistrial."
I wonder if the court reporter included courtroom laughter in the transcript.
Curious as to why Fine’s testimony was not more in-depth ! Especially having a direct link to the campaign and been given immunity ! Thanks Fog for your update !
What I am openly wondering now: This case is about a single false statement on Sept 19, 2016. The indictment indicates Sussmann billed his meeting with Jim Baker to the Clinton campaign. But so far, prosecutors have not presented billing records from this date. Why?
If Sarah Lynch missed this, then you can bet the DC jury missed it.
Why do I even bother to follow this trial? It's like the impulse to watch a train wreck and just as useless. This trial is just another cover up by the Barr/Durham Paint and Body shop. None of the FBI/DOJ conspirators will ever be brought to justice and the likelihood that Sussman or any other outside actors will get convicted by a DC jury of Demo-drones is quite remote. Even in the unlikely event that Sussman gets convicted he will get the Kevin Clinesmith slap on the wrist and be back mal-practicing the law in short order, as if nothing ever happened.
The prosecution is definitely losing the argument so far on materiality with Hellman stating he would have performed the same steps regardless of knowing source or not. He would have just put it into the report.
More interesting is that there are no FBI NSD witnesses for Durham on this issue. The Joffe data went to them as well, and they would have analyzed it. I believe Durham could care less about this indictment other than to firmly establish a much larger connection.
Second note. Joffe removed as CHS in 2021, supposedly for not following proper FBI CHS protocol for Alfa data. 5 years later and Durham caused this?
"Jake Sullivan’s wife is Margaret Goodlander - who serves as counsel to Attorney General Merrick Garland"
... are you kidding me? ... the Swamp is vast, and deep, and it stinks.
Thank you Techno Fog for the daily recaps from the trial! I am hoping that Durham can get a conviction, but the deck is stacked against him. Trial location in which the overwhelming majority voted for a Democratic candidate, Democratic appointed Judge, and Jurors that donated to Hillary. It would be nice with everything against him to pull out a conviction right before the elections.
I’m underwhelmed by the prosecution
amazing how they impeached Trump twice within a couple years...for crimes committed by Hillary, Biden, Obama and various Democrats in Government!
My confidence in someone being found guilty is dwindling, if no one is found guilty this is the end and they all go free. Hillary once again wins.
sadly it is clear the DOJ is 100% corrupt along with the FBI, and pretty much all DC!
According to a piece at Jonathan Turley's website this morning, Baker was asked about his being VERY LATE in turning over the text message in which Sussman lied in writing, where Sussman said that he wasn't representing a client when coming to the FBI (although he billed Hillary for the meeting --- LOL), and Baker's response was;
“It’s frankly — I’m not out to get Michael and this is not my investigation. This is your investigation.”
He should be disbarred and investigated and prosecuted just based on that answer alone. He had been lead counsel for the FBI when the incident occurred, AND he's an officer of the court. He was in possession of material evidence and intentionally played a game with the special counsel AND Congress (back when he testified about these matters) by withholding material evidence.
Baker's avowed notion that criminal investigation and prosecution is based upon being "out to get" someone, as opposed to be a matter of enforcement of the law, is an admission of his own corrupt mentality. But instead of getting disbarred, these are the types of people that the Bar Association seems to PREFER practice law in America.
At this point, all I’m doing is praying. Up is Down, Right is Left & everything stinks of corruption. I’m really hoping Durham isn’t compromised.??????
According to a report at the Fox website this evening (take that for what it's worth), Sussman's lawyer asked Marc Elias (Sussman's previous associate at Perkins Coie) "whether Sussmann went to the FBI in September 2016 with data alleging a covert communications channel between Donald Trump and Russia’s Alfa Bank on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign" and Elias answered, "I think you’d have to ask Mr. Sussmann."
Based upon that exchange between Sussman's lawyer and Sussman's former associate, Sussman's lawyer is asking (or going to ask) for a mistrial.
LOL LOL LOL
Wouldn't THAT be a neat trick, if a defendant's lawyer could ask a defendant's associate a question and use that to get a mistrial?
Apparently Judge Cooper wasn't impressed, and responded, "I am not inclined to grant a mistrial."
I wonder if the court reporter included courtroom laughter in the transcript.
It's all going to heat up once Sussmann's text to Baker is introduced into evidence.
so a conspiracy to over throw an election working with foreign spies....isn't a crime? Why isn't EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE on Trial?
why isnt this a treason trial?
Curious as to why Fine’s testimony was not more in-depth ! Especially having a direct link to the campaign and been given immunity ! Thanks Fog for your update !
Block Billing issue.
From
Sarah N. Lynch
@SarahNLynch
·
6h
What I am openly wondering now: This case is about a single false statement on Sept 19, 2016. The indictment indicates Sussmann billed his meeting with Jim Baker to the Clinton campaign. But so far, prosecutors have not presented billing records from this date. Why?
If Sarah Lynch missed this, then you can bet the DC jury missed it.
Why do I even bother to follow this trial? It's like the impulse to watch a train wreck and just as useless. This trial is just another cover up by the Barr/Durham Paint and Body shop. None of the FBI/DOJ conspirators will ever be brought to justice and the likelihood that Sussman or any other outside actors will get convicted by a DC jury of Demo-drones is quite remote. Even in the unlikely event that Sussman gets convicted he will get the Kevin Clinesmith slap on the wrist and be back mal-practicing the law in short order, as if nothing ever happened.
The prosecution is definitely losing the argument so far on materiality with Hellman stating he would have performed the same steps regardless of knowing source or not. He would have just put it into the report.
More interesting is that there are no FBI NSD witnesses for Durham on this issue. The Joffe data went to them as well, and they would have analyzed it. I believe Durham could care less about this indictment other than to firmly establish a much larger connection.
Second note. Joffe removed as CHS in 2021, supposedly for not following proper FBI CHS protocol for Alfa data. 5 years later and Durham caused this?