I’m on the road the next few days (wedding season) and will be providing updates on the Sussmann trial that have more transcripts and less discussion from your humble author. Today, it’s the morning testimony of former FBI general counsel James Baker. Yesterday we discussed how Sussmann reached out - not on behalf of a client - yo share the purported Alfa Bank/Trump data. Here he discusses what occurred during that fateful meeting in September 2016.
So in other words, they all concocted this to use against Trump and Sussman is going to be the only person who gets pinned. Then Joe will pardon him and the DNC will employ him as a "consultant "moving forward, for tons of money, since he will lose his law license taking a fall for Clinton, the FBI, CIA and Obama administration.
Sounds to me like Baker just threw Sussmann under the bus.? The Rat’s are jumping ship.!! Hopefully this continues.?? TY Technofog for all your hard work. Much appreciated.!!
Thank you, TechnoFog for keeping us updated! I think at this point Michael Sussmann is screwed.
With the testimony of James Baker, and Sussmann billing the meeting to the Hillary Clinton Campaign - as proven by the Durham Team during the examination of Marc Elias - Sussmann DID LIE to the FBI - exactly as Brittain Shaw claimed in her excellent opening argument on Day 2 of the trial.
What do you think?
Besides, Durham is using the Sussmann trial to lay the framework of a broad "Criminal Conspiracy" (at least this is my impression) - by introducing tons of documents and evidence: Perkins Coie lawyers billing the HRC campaign, calendars for meetings with precise dates, and emails between the conspirators.
Deborah Fine is a much more important piece of the entire criminal conspiracy that we thought. I will write an article on my Substack on that.
The testimony by Mook that Hillary approved dissemination of the information to the media is being heavily reported elsewhere. Acknowledgement of that approval is highly unusual. Under normal circumstances, the crooks who work for the Unprosecuted Multiple Felon Formerly Known As "Hillary in a Landslide" know enough to keep her completely insulated so that she can deny knowing anything about the crimes committed on her behalf. The only reason I can think of for them to be saying that Hillary approved this is that they must know that Durham has the proof, so they don't want to risk being charged with perjury.
Contrary to usual trial circumstances, the more evidence of guilt that gets presented, the more this case is looking tougher to win, because of the Hillary donors on the jury, who will probably vote to give Sussman a bonus, since his crimes are what they KNEW they were buying with their donations. Win or lose, when the case is over, they'll probably leave the courthouse and start building a statue to Sussman right outside.
But if there's a case for conspiracy in the works, coming against all of these conspirators --- including people in the FBI and DOJ --- then THAT case is looking stronger by the day --- assuming Durham can bring that case in the Virginia District or any other jurisdiction that won't be guaranteed to have a jury packed with Hillary donors.
Late yesterday (May 19, 2022), Durham filed a Response to a Motion for Protective Order filed May 12 by former New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, who has been subpoenaed by Sussman to testify on behalf of the defendant.
In Lichtblau's Motion for Protective Order, he agrees to waive his reporter's privilege to answer questions from Sussman's lawyer, but seeks to retain some privilege to refuse to answer certain questions that Durham might have for him on cross-examination. The entire Response by Durham is well worth reading, but here's the entire argument summarized in two paragraphs:
"The Movant has represented that the defendant, Michael Sussmann, has waived confidentiality with respect to his communications with Lichtblau and subpoenaed his testimony at trial. In addition, the defendant agreed to limit the scope of his questioning on direct examination to his communications with Lichtblau. Moreover, in footnote 3 of his filing, Lichtblau references a similar position being taken by Rodney Joffe regarding confidentiality issues.
"The government, however, declined to enter into an agreement restricting its cross-examination of Lichtblau. In the event Lichtblau testifies, the government should not be restricted in its cross-examination of Lichtblau to the self-serving categories of evidence that the Movant requests. The government should be permitted to cross-examine Lichtblau about any communications he had with other individuals, including, but not limited to, Fusion GPS personnel and computer researchers, regarding the alleged connections between the Trump Organization and Alfa bank. To the extent Sussmann, Fusion GPS, or others (including computer researchers) approached or communicated with Lichtblau concerning Alfa Bank or related matters, the government should be permitted to question Lichtblau about such exchanges, as they are relevant to the defendant’s communications with Lichtblau on these same issues and are probative of the defendant’s alleged actions on behalf of clients (Rodney Joffe and the Clinton Campaign). The government also intends to cross-examine Lichtblau on issues pertaining to the credibility and reliability of his testimony."
Durham then goes on to cite the relevant legal authorities indicating that there's no basis for a reporter to claim any privilege while testifying in a criminal trial and no basis to allow a witness to cherry-pick what he will testify to in order to assist a defendant while refusing to answer relevant questions on cross-examination.
If the court agrees with Durham, it seems questionable (or doubtful) that Eric Lichtblau will testify, given the chances of damaging Sussman on cross-examination and possibly implicating others as well if the court won't drastically restrict the scope of cross-examination. So I wouldn't hold my breath expecting Eric Lichtblau to testify as planned.
Can I be a confidential human source? And just roll up to the Hoover building and holler at the top FBI council to give him some info? No! So how do they do it?
I’m really not liking what I’m reading so far. I’m becoming more and more convinced that Durham is protecting the FBLie. Will the middlemen take the fall alone? Sure, Sussman and Elias are big fish in the Clinton Mafia, but their convictions alone won’t do much to fix what’s broken. This prosecution might make things even worse for the country because our corrupt “elite” and our corrupt institutions could be empowered to “go bigger next time” without fear. I hope Techno sees this going differently, and he very well may, because I’m not a lawyerologist.
So- allegations of simply communicating with other countries is probable cause for an investigation? Didn’t the Clintons spend years enriching themselves via foreign governments? Were they investigated for their “communications”? And at the start of a speculative investigation the FBI is in contact with The NY Times? Seems like the whole thing was a gross violation of Trump’s (and others) civil rights (4th amendment). Isn’t the statute of limitations longer for a civil rights offence?
Can someone in this thread enlighten me on the statute of limitations issues (if any) around any wrongdoing committed by others should a criminal conspiracy be the long game?
So in other words, they all concocted this to use against Trump and Sussman is going to be the only person who gets pinned. Then Joe will pardon him and the DNC will employ him as a "consultant "moving forward, for tons of money, since he will lose his law license taking a fall for Clinton, the FBI, CIA and Obama administration.
TY for this Technofog. Safe travels!
Sounds to me like Baker just threw Sussmann under the bus.? The Rat’s are jumping ship.!! Hopefully this continues.?? TY Technofog for all your hard work. Much appreciated.!!
Thank you, TechnoFog for keeping us updated! I think at this point Michael Sussmann is screwed.
With the testimony of James Baker, and Sussmann billing the meeting to the Hillary Clinton Campaign - as proven by the Durham Team during the examination of Marc Elias - Sussmann DID LIE to the FBI - exactly as Brittain Shaw claimed in her excellent opening argument on Day 2 of the trial.
What do you think?
Besides, Durham is using the Sussmann trial to lay the framework of a broad "Criminal Conspiracy" (at least this is my impression) - by introducing tons of documents and evidence: Perkins Coie lawyers billing the HRC campaign, calendars for meetings with precise dates, and emails between the conspirators.
Deborah Fine is a much more important piece of the entire criminal conspiracy that we thought. I will write an article on my Substack on that.
Wasn’t it around this time that then head of the CIA, John Brennan was was directly involved in personally delivering the Steele dossier to the FBI?
The testimony by Mook that Hillary approved dissemination of the information to the media is being heavily reported elsewhere. Acknowledgement of that approval is highly unusual. Under normal circumstances, the crooks who work for the Unprosecuted Multiple Felon Formerly Known As "Hillary in a Landslide" know enough to keep her completely insulated so that she can deny knowing anything about the crimes committed on her behalf. The only reason I can think of for them to be saying that Hillary approved this is that they must know that Durham has the proof, so they don't want to risk being charged with perjury.
Contrary to usual trial circumstances, the more evidence of guilt that gets presented, the more this case is looking tougher to win, because of the Hillary donors on the jury, who will probably vote to give Sussman a bonus, since his crimes are what they KNEW they were buying with their donations. Win or lose, when the case is over, they'll probably leave the courthouse and start building a statue to Sussman right outside.
But if there's a case for conspiracy in the works, coming against all of these conspirators --- including people in the FBI and DOJ --- then THAT case is looking stronger by the day --- assuming Durham can bring that case in the Virginia District or any other jurisdiction that won't be guaranteed to have a jury packed with Hillary donors.
What I respect about Substack, is that posters like Gene Frenkle aren't banned, as their right wing counterparts would be at NYT or Wapo.
Late yesterday (May 19, 2022), Durham filed a Response to a Motion for Protective Order filed May 12 by former New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, who has been subpoenaed by Sussman to testify on behalf of the defendant.
In Lichtblau's Motion for Protective Order, he agrees to waive his reporter's privilege to answer questions from Sussman's lawyer, but seeks to retain some privilege to refuse to answer certain questions that Durham might have for him on cross-examination. The entire Response by Durham is well worth reading, but here's the entire argument summarized in two paragraphs:
"The Movant has represented that the defendant, Michael Sussmann, has waived confidentiality with respect to his communications with Lichtblau and subpoenaed his testimony at trial. In addition, the defendant agreed to limit the scope of his questioning on direct examination to his communications with Lichtblau. Moreover, in footnote 3 of his filing, Lichtblau references a similar position being taken by Rodney Joffe regarding confidentiality issues.
"The government, however, declined to enter into an agreement restricting its cross-examination of Lichtblau. In the event Lichtblau testifies, the government should not be restricted in its cross-examination of Lichtblau to the self-serving categories of evidence that the Movant requests. The government should be permitted to cross-examine Lichtblau about any communications he had with other individuals, including, but not limited to, Fusion GPS personnel and computer researchers, regarding the alleged connections between the Trump Organization and Alfa bank. To the extent Sussmann, Fusion GPS, or others (including computer researchers) approached or communicated with Lichtblau concerning Alfa Bank or related matters, the government should be permitted to question Lichtblau about such exchanges, as they are relevant to the defendant’s communications with Lichtblau on these same issues and are probative of the defendant’s alleged actions on behalf of clients (Rodney Joffe and the Clinton Campaign). The government also intends to cross-examine Lichtblau on issues pertaining to the credibility and reliability of his testimony."
Durham then goes on to cite the relevant legal authorities indicating that there's no basis for a reporter to claim any privilege while testifying in a criminal trial and no basis to allow a witness to cherry-pick what he will testify to in order to assist a defendant while refusing to answer relevant questions on cross-examination.
If the court agrees with Durham, it seems questionable (or doubtful) that Eric Lichtblau will testify, given the chances of damaging Sussman on cross-examination and possibly implicating others as well if the court won't drastically restrict the scope of cross-examination. So I wouldn't hold my breath expecting Eric Lichtblau to testify as planned.
Can I be a confidential human source? And just roll up to the Hoover building and holler at the top FBI council to give him some info? No! So how do they do it?
I’m really not liking what I’m reading so far. I’m becoming more and more convinced that Durham is protecting the FBLie. Will the middlemen take the fall alone? Sure, Sussman and Elias are big fish in the Clinton Mafia, but their convictions alone won’t do much to fix what’s broken. This prosecution might make things even worse for the country because our corrupt “elite” and our corrupt institutions could be empowered to “go bigger next time” without fear. I hope Techno sees this going differently, and he very well may, because I’m not a lawyerologist.
Sussman was impartial? why was he at the meeting? the information he gave is not transparent, it had a target, he wasn't impartial, he lies.
Gonna be interesting who steps in it first.
So- allegations of simply communicating with other countries is probable cause for an investigation? Didn’t the Clintons spend years enriching themselves via foreign governments? Were they investigated for their “communications”? And at the start of a speculative investigation the FBI is in contact with The NY Times? Seems like the whole thing was a gross violation of Trump’s (and others) civil rights (4th amendment). Isn’t the statute of limitations longer for a civil rights offence?
My question is did Hillary sell America uranium to Russia this was sent on Facebook years ago and nothing was never a investigation !
Can someone in this thread enlighten me on the statute of limitations issues (if any) around any wrongdoing committed by others should a criminal conspiracy be the long game?
un impeach Trump