"The Deep State" aka the American Intelligence Community

[Typical Lax Dad]

The IC didn't go after Biden. The computer guy called the FBI & asked them to come get Hunter's laptop.

Hunter was already under investigation before that laptop was left.

So...you tell me...what prompted the investigation? And why did Giuliani----a civilian with an obvious axe to grind----- go to Ukraine, and feed info. to Barr?

You don't know, do you? And yet you're still trying to tell me that Rudy's involvement was fine for you? Come on. Just pony up and say "no, I wasn't fine with Rudy's obvious conflicts, and weaponizing US Intel to go after Joe Biden's family", so we can move on.

Hunter's laptop confirms that Rudy was on a valid scent.

And yet neither NYPost, you, or the Times can name a single crime on it. But for you, it's valid?

That's great news, because you understand that that means that you MUST agree that TeamTrump investigation was valid, right?

Because if the contents of Hunter's laptop was enough for Old Salt to say "yeah, that's enough of an appearance of a crime to say they were right to investigate....." obviously the felonies TeamTrump committed was proof that the investigations were warranted.

So are we done now?

Durham has not finished yet & reported out. He does not leak like Team Mueller or Comey's FBI.

I was finished a while ago. You just keep going in circles, throwing the same sh!t up against the wall.

You mean logic.

[RedFromMI]

BREAKING: Jury finds DC lawyer Michael Sussmann NOT GUILTY on charge of lying to the FBI - big loss for special counsel John Durham in 1st trial of his more than three-year investigation.

As should be expected given the fact there was no real case here...

[Typical Lax Dad]

HRC paid for disinformation, calling it oppo, then fed it to deep state apparatchiks as intel.

Really? Who? Who did Hillary hand it to, OS? Six years, and you STILL can't name names. And heck, five minutes ago, you told us that you were convinced that Hillary made the call to feed this stuff to the press. Now that you realize that logic doesn't hang together, you change your tune and tell us that Hillary gave it to a Federal employee---your "Deep State".

So which is it? Hilariously, you can't make up your mind as to how to tune your Tin Foil....

And the Dossier had nothing to do with, for example, Kush and Jr. meeting with a Russian spy in Trump tower. And the dossier had nothing to do with why all of Trump's men who are now convicted felons, many of them for lying about----you guessed right------dealings with Russians.

Your man Flynn? Remember him? Spin to us how ol' Hillary did that. Hillary MADE Flynn lie to the VP and the FBI....is that it?

You just block out anything you don't want to hear, and expect the forum to be too stupid to notice.

Sorry, it doesn't work.

Squirrel, squirrel !

Her campaign paid Sussman's law firm to deliver it.

deh in on it too!!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chef-thoma ... 1653667232

[Typical Lax Dad]

The Real Story in Durham’s Indictment of Democratic Lawyer Michael Sussmann

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/ ... -sussmann/

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting. Do we have any idea of the identity of Tech Executive 1?

My guess is Andy’s narrative is largely right. But I think it’ll still be hard to get a conviction of Sussman. We’ll see.

If I recall correctly, I posted this or a similar article a couple years ago:

Who Is Michael Sussmann?
The FBI’s general counsel met with a Clinton lawyer in September 2016

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-mic ... 1539299003

He's definitely been on someone's radar. Re Tech Exec 1, I bet OS has a theory... and/or, my guess is, Durham knows.

Andy lays out my theory quite nicely.
Now THAT's a speaking indictment, (suck on that Weissmann)
...timing driven by statute of limitations.

...Sussmann claims he was acting solely as a private citizen in going to the FBI, ...while billing the Clinton campaign for his time.

Seacoaster made a good call.

[tech37]

The Real Story in Durham’s Indictment of Democratic Lawyer Michael Sussmann

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/ ... -sussmann/

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting. Do we have any idea of the identity of Tech Executive 1?

My guess is Andy’s narrative is largely right. But I think it’ll still be hard to get a conviction of Sussman. We’ll see.

If I recall correctly, I posted this or a similar article a couple years ago:

Who Is Michael Sussmann?
The FBI’s general counsel met with a Clinton lawyer in September 2016

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-mic ... 1539299003

He's definitely been on someone's radar. Re Tech Exec 1, I bet OS has a theory... and/or, my guess is, Durham knows.

Andy lays out my theory quite nicely.
Now THAT's a speaking indictment, (suck on that Weissmann)
...timing driven by statute of limitations.

...Sussmann claims he was acting solely as a private citizen in going to the FBI, ...while billing the Clinton campaign for his time.

Seacoaster made a good call.

Ha! Not really.

The damning evidence and proof (text message to Baker) wasn't allowed into evidence due to statute of limitations.

Just like O.J., Sussman actually did it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The Real Story in Durham’s Indictment of Democratic Lawyer Michael Sussmann

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/ ... -sussmann/

Very interesting article. Thanks for posting. Do we have any idea of the identity of Tech Executive 1?

My guess is Andy’s narrative is largely right. But I think it’ll still be hard to get a conviction of Sussman. We’ll see.

If I recall correctly, I posted this or a similar article a couple years ago:

Who Is Michael Sussmann?
The FBI’s general counsel met with a Clinton lawyer in September 2016

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-mic ... 1539299003

He's definitely been on someone's radar. Re Tech Exec 1, I bet OS has a theory... and/or, my guess is, Durham knows.

Andy lays out my theory quite nicely.
Now THAT's a speaking indictment, (suck on that Weissmann)
...timing driven by statute of limitations.

...Sussmann claims he was acting solely as a private citizen in going to the FBI, ...while billing the Clinton campaign for his time.

Seacoaster made a good call.

Ha! Not really.

The damning evidence and proof (text message to Baker) wasn't allowed into evidence due to statute of limitations.

Just like O.J., Sussman actually did it.

Yep. Seacoaster got it wrong.

[Seacoaster(1)]

He did it? Nope, not in America. A jury of his peers says No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... y-clinton/

Key evidence? The evidence as a whole is what juries consider. So this:

"The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all.

Since Sussmann did not testify, Baker gave the only direct witness account of the conversation. Sussmann’s attorneys repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz."

[dislaxxic]

...cause we know OS LOVES reading Potty Mouth's expert opinions about the whole Durham debacle. That's right, DEBACLE. This is the sort of thing Trumpelthinskin and Rudy Colludy were HOPING would come when they wanted Zellinskyy to "just announce an investigation" into Hunter...stir up the Frothy Right for that endless obfuscation and dis-information they're so good at...

JURY ACQUITS MICHAEL SUSSMANN; SUSSMANN LAWYER CALLS PROSECUTION “EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTORIAL OVERREACH”

Sussman's attorney's comment:

We have always known that Michael Sussmann is innocent and we are grateful that the members of the jury have now come to the same conclusion.

But Michael Sussmann should never have been charged in the first place. This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach. And we believe that today’s verdict sends an unmistakable message to anyone who cares to listen: politics is no substitute for evidence, and politics has no place in our system of justice.

But according to Tech37..."he got off on a technicality"

Froth On...

..

[jhu72]

He did it? Nope, not in America. A jury of his peers says No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... y-clinton/

Key evidence? The evidence as a whole is what juries consider. So this:

"The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all.

Since Sussmann did not testify, Baker gave the only direct witness account of the conversation. Sussmann’s attorneys repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz."

... strong case.

[Typical Lax Dad]

...cause we know OS LOVES reading Potty Mouth's expert opinions about the whole Durham debacle. That's right, DEBACLE. This is the sort of thing Trumpelthinskin and Rudy Colludy were HOPING would come when they wanted Zellinskyy to "just announce an investigation" into Hunter...stir up the Frothy Right for that endless obfuscation and dis-information they're so good at...

JURY ACQUITS MICHAEL SUSSMANN; SUSSMANN LAWYER CALLS PROSECUTION “EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTORIAL OVERREACH”

Sussman's attorney's comment:

We have always known that Michael Sussmann is innocent and we are grateful that the members of the jury have now come to the same conclusion.

But Michael Sussmann should never have been charged in the first place. This is a case of extraordinary prosecutorial overreach. And we believe that today’s verdict sends an unmistakable message to anyone who cares to listen: politics is no substitute for evidence, and politics has no place in our system of justice.

But according to Tech37..."he got off on a technicality"

Froth On...

..

You have to read the National Review to get the real story!

[Typical Lax Dad]

He did it? Nope, not in America. A jury of his peers says No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... y-clinton/

Key evidence? The evidence as a whole is what juries consider. So this:

"The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all.

Since Sussmann did not testify, Baker gave the only direct witness account of the conversation. Sussmann’s attorneys repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz."

Old Soviet was frothing at the mouth over this stuff this weekend. His Old back channel may have given him a tip. He was more agitated than usual and used the sh!t word which was a surprise!

[jhu72]

Faux News weighs in. The jurors were biased. Can't say I am surprised.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Nice cackle

[Seacoaster(1)]

Faux News weighs in. The jurors were biased. Can't say I am surprised.

In a healthy country, this guy would never have been charged. The case was, it seems, a coin toss -- and prosecutors do not normally take the coin flip to trial. Just dumb.

[old salt]

He did it? Nope, not in America. A jury of his peers says No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... y-clinton/

Key evidence? The evidence as a whole is what juries consider. So this:

"The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all.

Since Sussmann did not testify, Baker gave the only direct witness account of the conversation. Sussmann’s attorneys repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz."

Old Soviet was frothing at the mouth over this stuff this weekend. His Old back channel may have given him a tip. He was more agitated than usual and used the sh!t word which was a surprise!

I never predicted a conviction in this case. I said it was unlikely in a DC Court.
I said it's value was in establishing the record of evidence, which it did.
I hope Perkins-Coie refunded the 3 hrs billed to the Clinton campaign for Sussman's .5 hr acting as a concerned citizen of good conscience.
Sussman did not face the same financial pressure in defending himself that forced Flynn & Papadop to take a plea.
...& instead of facing Judge Sullivan, this Judge's wife was Lisa Page's defense attorney. Small town DC Jury pool of 90% Clinton voters.
Durham secured an admission/plea on Clinesmith & stands a better chance against Danchenko in E VA. After all, he's a Russian.

[dislaxxic]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

That's more excuses than a pregnant nun gives...

..

[RedFromMI]

Then there is this point of view:

By Josh Marshall
|
May 31, 2022 1:33 p.m.
SHARE ARTICLE

It’s hard to know what there is bad enough to say about the John Durham probe, which just saw its cause celebre indictment of lawyer Michael Sussmann drop kicked to eternity in a rapid acquittal. This was a corrupt effort from the git-go. Durham’s own deputy, who had worked with or for him for decades, felt obliged to resign because of pressure to produce meritless indictments to save Trump’s bacon in the dying days of his presidency.

Perjury and false statement cases are generally only brought when the evidence of deception is overwhelming. The cases most often turn on whether the deception was meaningful, material to an actual case. In this case the evidence that Sussmann deceived anyone was extremely thin. The argument that the notional deception was material to anything was even weaker.

Durham’s probe has gone on more than a year longer than the Mueller probe it was purportedly investigating. And it’s biggest “get” was this absurd indictment that was ignominiously tossed this afternoon. This was never a true investigation or prosecution. It was always a political assignment created by Bill Barr for the benefit of Donald Trump. Corrupt from the first moment, fruit of the poison tree.

[Typical Lax Dad]

He did it? Nope, not in America. A jury of his peers says No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... y-clinton/

Key evidence? The evidence as a whole is what juries consider. So this:

"The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all.

Since Sussmann did not testify, Baker gave the only direct witness account of the conversation. Sussmann’s attorneys repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz."

Old Soviet was frothing at the mouth over this stuff this weekend. His Old back channel may have given him a tip. He was more agitated than usual and used the sh!t word which was a surprise!

I never predicted a conviction in this case. I said it was unlikely in a DC Court.
I said it's value was in establishing the record of evidence, which it did.
I hope Perkins-Coie refunded the 3 hrs billed to the Clinton campaign for Sussman's .5 hr acting as a concerned citizen of good conscience.
Sussman did not face the same financial pressure in defending himself that forced Flynn & Papadop to take a plea.
...& instead of facing Judge Sullivan, this Judge's wife was Lisa Page's defense attorney. Small town DC Jury pool of 90% Clinton voters.
Durham secured an admission/plea on Clinesmith & stands a better chance against Danchenko in E VA. After all, he's a Russian.

[old salt]

He did it? Nope, not in America. A jury of his peers says No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... y-clinton/

Key evidence? The evidence as a whole is what juries consider. So this:

"The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all.

Since Sussmann did not testify, Baker gave the only direct witness account of the conversation. Sussmann’s attorneys repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz."

Old Soviet was frothing at the mouth over this stuff this weekend. His Old back channel may have given him a tip. He was more agitated than usual and used the sh!t word which was a surprise!

I never predicted a conviction in this case. I said it was unlikely in a DC Court.
I said it's value was in establishing the record of evidence, which it did.
I hope Perkins-Coie refunded the 3 hrs billed to the Clinton campaign for Sussman's .5 hr acting as a concerned citizen of good conscience.
Sussman did not face the same financial pressure in defending himself that forced Flynn & Papadop to take a plea.
...& instead of facing Judge Sullivan, this Judge's wife was Lisa Page's defense attorney. Small town DC Jury pool of 90% Clinton voters.
Durham secured an admission/plea on Clinesmith & stands a better chance against Danchenko in E VA. After all, he's a Russian.

Nice pic of your wife when she saw you step out of the shower.

[Seacoaster(1)]

He did it? Nope, not in America. A jury of his peers says No.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... y-clinton/

Key evidence? The evidence as a whole is what juries consider. So this:

"The key witness of the trial was James Baker, who was the FBI’s top lawyer when he met with Sussmann on Sept. 19, 2016. Baker told the jury he was “100 percent confident” that Sussmann insisted to him he was not acting on behalf of a client and that if he had known, he would have handled the conversation differently and perhaps not even agreed to the meeting at all.

Since Sussmann did not testify, Baker gave the only direct witness account of the conversation. Sussmann’s attorneys repeatedly challenged Baker’s credibility, noting that in one earlier interview, Baker said Sussmann was representing cybersecurity clients; in another, he seemed to say he didn’t remember that part of the talk. In response to questions on the witness stand, he said he couldn’t remember 116 times, according to Berkowitz."

Old Soviet was frothing at the mouth over this stuff this weekend. His Old back channel may have given him a tip. He was more agitated than usual and used the sh!t word which was a surprise!

I never predicted a conviction in this case. I said it was unlikely in a DC Court.
I said it's value was in establishing the record of evidence, which it did.
I hope Perkins-Coie refunded the 3 hrs billed to the Clinton campaign for Sussman's .5 hr acting as a concerned citizen of good conscience.
Sussman did not face the same financial pressure in defending himself that forced Flynn & Papadop to take a plea.
...& instead of facing Judge Sullivan, this Judge's wife was Lisa Page's defense attorney. Small town DC Jury pool of 90% Clinton voters.
Durham secured an admission/plea on Clinesmith & stands a better chance against Danchenko in E VA. After all, he's a Russian.

Nice pic of your wife when she saw you step out of the shower.

All those tax dollars and he's a 12 year old.