Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

New Durham indictment - second leg of Hillary Clinton's Russia collusion dirty trick

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Durham indictment - second leg of Hillary Clinton's Russia collusion dirty trick

    New Durham indictment exposes second leg of Hillary Clinton's Russia collusion dirty trick

    Indictment alleges Democrat lawyer was paid by Clinton campaign to develop documents on alleged Russia collusion computer link to Trump and give it to FBI in final days of election despite concerns it was a 'red herring'

    Nearly two years after evidence emerged that the infamous Steele dossier was a political dirty trick filled with Russian disinformation and disproved allegations, Special Counsel John Durham unloaded a new indictment that exposes a parallel effort by Hillary Clinton's campaign to flood the FBI with more dubious Trump-Russia collusion dirt.

    In painstaking detail, Durham laid out in the indictment Thursday how Democrat superlawyer Michael Sussmann used Clinton campaign funds to construct a now-debunked memo and other evidence alleging that computer communications between a server at the Alfa Bank in Russia and the Trump Tower in New York might be a secret backdoor communication system for Trump and Vladimir Putin to hijack the 2016 election.

    Sussmann delivered the package in mid-September 2016 — just weeks before Election Day as Trump and Clinton were locked in a tight race — to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, even after the team of computer experts warned the theory was a "red-herring," according to the indictment.

    And then Sussmann falsely told Baker, the prosecutors alleged, he was providing the information to the FBI solely as a good citizen, and not on behalf of any client.

    In fact, Sussmann was working on behalf of a tech executive and the Clinton campaign and charged nearly all the work on the Alfa Bank narrative to the Democratic presidential campaign, including his meeting with Baker, the indictment stated.

    The alleged lying, Durham argued, deceived the FBI into thinking the allegations were coming from a neutral source — Sussmann had been a cybersecurity expert — and not an election-motivated client.

    "In truth, and in fact, and as Sussmann well knew, Sussmann had acted on behalf of and in coordination with two specific clients of the law firm: tech executive 1 and the Clinton campaign in assembling and conveying these allegations," the grand jury indictment charged.

    "Sussman's false statement to the FBI general counsel was material to that investigation because among other reasons it was relevant to the FBI whether the conveyor of these allegations was providing them as an ordinary citizen merely passing along information or whether he was instead doing so as a paid advocate for clients with a political or business agenda."

    .....

    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    If person A hires person B to kill someone, and person B gets apprehended by law enforcement, doesn't that make person A also complicit in the same crime?
    "What am I doing here?" -- Joe Biden 2021

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      If person A hires person B to kill someone, and person B gets apprehended by law enforcement, doesn't that make person A also complicit in the same crime?
      If person A is a republican, sure as shootin'.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seanD View Post
        If person A hires person B to kill someone, and person B gets apprehended by law enforcement, doesn't that make person A also complicit in the same crime?
        In your example, yes. But if I hire you to get me a TV, I'm not responsible if you, on your own, decide to steal one for me.

        So, it depends on the details.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

          In your example, yes. But if I hire you to get me a TV, I'm not responsible if you, on your own, decide to steal one for me.

          So, it depends on the details.
          I think CP hit the nail on the head. When it's someone like Clinton, or anyone not a Trump supporter, that's when legal technicalities and semantics matter.
          "What am I doing here?" -- Joe Biden 2021

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

            In your example, yes. But if I hire you to get me a TV, I'm not responsible if you, on your own, decide to steal one for me.

            So, it depends on the details.
            When taken in total with the Steele Dossier and a few other dirty tricks the Clinton campaign was engaged in I'd say there was strong evidence that the lawyer was doing exactly as he was told.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              I've been wondering why a Democratic administration is letting the Durham probe continue. I considered simple respect for the legal process but that didn't seem right.

              Then it came to me. The Biden camp is probably still mad over Obama's lukewarm support for him in 2016 and Clinton getting the nomination. This is simple political payback plus diminish the Clinton influence in the Democratic party. That this could end up somewhat vindicating Trump is something they either are overlooking or don't care about.

              It will be interesting to see if Sussmann makes a deal and who he gives up.
              "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

              "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
                I've been wondering why a Democratic administration is letting the Durham probe continue. I considered simple respect for the legal process but that didn't seem right.

                Then it came to me. The Biden camp is probably still mad over Obama's lukewarm support for him in 2016 and Clinton getting the nomination. This is simple political payback plus diminish the Clinton influence in the Democratic party. That this could end up somewhat vindicating Trump is something they either are overlooking or don't care about.

                It will be interesting to see if Sussmann makes a deal and who he gives up.
                Political payback makes no sense, since it would only be hurting the Democratic party.

                If you want to be cynical about it, consider the optics if they tried to interfere with a special counsel.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  Political payback makes no sense, since it would only be hurting the Democratic party.

                  If you want to be cynical about it, consider the optics if they tried to interfere with a special counsel.
                  I see your point and you may be right. I do think you're overlooking the possibility of a faction fight inside the Democratic party. I've seen a few interparty fights in my city so I know they happen.

                  If they interfered with the special counsel, they would simply say "Trump started it so obviously its bogus." The MSM would echo the line and in a couple days any outrage would be gone except on Fox News. I just looked on cnn.com for anything about Sussmann and all I could find was one disparaging article buried on the site. I don't see interfering with the special counsel as an optic that could hurt them.
                  "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                  "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post

                    I see your point and you may be right. I do think you're overlooking the possibility of a faction fight inside the Democratic party. I've seen a few interparty fights in my city so I know they happen.

                    If they interfered with the special counsel, they would simply say "Trump started it so obviously its bogus." The MSM would echo the line and in a couple days any outrage would be gone except on Fox News. I just looked on cnn.com for anything about Sussmann and all I could find was one disparaging article buried on the site. I don't see interfering with the special counsel as an optic that could hurt them.
                    It might also be that they are confident that there is nothing to fear from the special counsel. The investigation was supposed to be directed against the FBI and other government agencies, but the latest indictment is of a private individual, where the only evidence against him is the word of a single FBI official.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
                      I've been wondering why a Democratic administration is letting the Durham probe continue. I considered simple respect for the legal process but that didn't seem right.

                      Then it came to me. The Biden camp is probably still mad over Obama's lukewarm support for him in 2016 and Clinton getting the nomination. This is simple political payback plus diminish the Clinton influence in the Democratic party. That this could end up somewhat vindicating Trump is something they either are overlooking or don't care about.

                      It will be interesting to see if Sussmann makes a deal and who he gives up.
                      This implies that Biden actually has any say so about what is going on. Keep in mind this is the "president" who keeps whining about how his keepers won't let him do things like ask questions and when he disobeys, turns the sound off on him.

                      More likely this is a case where they're allowing a small fish to be thrown under the bus (love mixing metaphors for breakfast) rather than shutting it down and risking Durham leaking damaging information on those higher up.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                        In your example, yes. But if I hire you to get me a TV, I'm not responsible if you, on your own, decide to steal one for me.

                        So, it depends on the details.
                        Interesting hypothetical. But why would somebody hire somebody else to secure a TV except to expect a much better deal through shady or illegal practices?
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                          Interesting hypothetical. But why would somebody hire somebody else to secure a TV except to expect a much better deal through shady or illegal practices?
                          I just thought of an example from my IT Consulting days - some rich guy wants a really good big screen TV, but he doesn't know much about all the terminology, doesn't have a pickup truck or van to deliver it, and doesn't care how much it costs --- he just wants the TV set up in his home theater.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                            Interesting hypothetical. But why would somebody hire somebody else to secure a TV except to expect a much better deal through shady or illegal practices?
                            Online site, older shut in, etc.

                            But honestly it was just an illustration that sometimes hiring someone isn't necessarily responsible if the person commits a crime in the execution of that job.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                              Online site, older shut in, etc.

                              But honestly it was just an illustration that sometimes hiring someone isn't necessarily responsible if the person commits a crime in the execution of that job.
                              Yup - I immediately thought of examples.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Today, 01:18 PM
                              3 responses
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by rogue06, Today, 10:44 AM
                              2 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by NorrinRadd, Today, 01:15 AM
                              13 responses
                              102 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post NorrinRadd  
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 11:02 PM
                              29 responses
                              192 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by mikewhitney, Yesterday, 10:44 PM
                              21 responses
                              116 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Working...
                              X