The Michael Sussman Trial: Special Counsel Durham's Probe Into The Origins of Russia Collusion Hoax.

[All_Pro_Bills]

The verdict comes as no surprise given the composition of the jury and the guardrails the judge imposed on the prosecutions case.  In one instance the judge overruled objections from the prosecution and allowed a woman to remain on the jury, even though her daughter and Sussmann’s daughter play on the same high school team.  Three other jurors that identified as Clinton donors were allowed to serve.  Based solely on the composition of the jury a guilty verdict would have been a surprise. 

But the record of testimony made it clear the Clinton campaign was the source of the Russian collusion story, that they funded the misinformation research, and knew it as false when they approached the FBI to plant the seeds of their investigation.

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The verdict comes as no surprise given the composition of the jury and the guardrails the judge imposed on the prosecutions case.  In one instance the judge overruled objections from the prosecution and allowed a woman to remain on the jury, even though her daughter and Sussmann’s daughter play on the same high school team.  Three other jurors that identified as Clinton donors were allowed to serve.  Based solely on the composition of the jury a guilty verdict would have been a surprise. 

But the record of testimony made it clear the Clinton campaign was the source of the Russian collusion story, that they funded the misinformation research, and knew it as false when they approached the FBI to plant the seeds of their investigation.

 

 

 

 

The jury in the Manafort trial had MAGA people on it but they still convicted him. The idea that because someone donated to a specific campaign that they cannot be impartial in a jury trial is something people claim because they're grasping at straws. Do we have transcripts of the jury selection process? I would much rather look at primary sources than accuse someone of bias because it furthers a particular political angle. If Durham was concerned about particular members of the jury, he could have moved to strike them before the onset of the trial.

 

Jury trials routinely have guardrails put on them in terms of what evidence is allowed and what is not. It is part of the procedure for the attorneys to file motions in limine to argue that certain evidence should or should not be made available for the jury. Are you alleging that the judge made a material error in one of his rulings? And if so, which one and why? In any case, if that's true, Durham should appeal the case.

 

We also know that Clinton did not start the Russia investigation. This is spelled out pretty clearly in the Mueller report. I know I've mentioned this before, but I seriously recommend reading the Mueller report for yourself if you are interested in this topic. It has tons of evidence and primary sources but it is frequently taken out of context and straight up lied about by political actors to further their own agendas.

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The jury in the Manafort trial had MAGA people on it but they still convicted him. The idea that because someone donated to a specific campaign that they cannot be impartial in a jury trial is something people claim because they're grasping at straws. Do we have transcripts of the jury selection process? I would much rather look at primary sources than accuse someone of bias because it furthers a particular political angle. If Durham was concerned about particular members of the jury, he could have moved to strike them before the onset of the trial.

 

Jury trials routinely have guardrails put on them in terms of what evidence is allowed and what is not. It is part of the procedure for the attorneys to file motions in limine to argue that certain evidence should or should not be made available for the jury. Are you alleging that the judge made a material error in one of his rulings? And if so, which one and why? In any case, if that's true, Durham should appeal the case.

 

We also know that Clinton did not start the Russia investigation. This is spelled out pretty clearly in the Mueller report. I know I've mentioned this before, but I seriously recommend reading the Mueller report for yourself if you are interested in this topic. It has tons of evidence and primary sources but it is frequently taken out of context and straight up lied about by political actors to further their own agendas.

Well thought out exchange of views, but I'll ask the same question I do anytime I see anyone quoting the validity of the Mueller investigation.  Given the zeal of the anti-Trump camp to nail him for the smallest of infractions like j-walking, why hasn't anyone been indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crime or campaign violation if the investigation produced evidence of illegal activities such as conspiring with a foreign entity against the government?  How can something that goes on for over a year and spends millions of dollars on legal fees and lawyers and interviews that produced tons of evidence just get a readout and then gets dropped?  My read of the summary was Mueller's conclusion that they might be innocent but we can't prove it.  A conclusion that defies the basic premise of the entire legal system.  A presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt, not disprove it.       

[BillsFanNC]

29 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The jury in the Manafort trial had MAGA people on it but they still convicted him. The idea that because someone donated to a specific campaign that they cannot be impartial in a jury trial is something people claim because they're grasping at straws. Do we have transcripts of the jury selection process? I would much rather look at primary sources than accuse someone of bias because it furthers a particular political angle. If Durham was concerned about particular members of the jury, he could have moved to strike them before the onset of the trial.

 

He did. Denied.

 

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/19/judge-sussmann-trial-denies-prosecution-request-re/

 

Shocker.

 

 

 

[716er]

2 hours ago, DRsGhost said:

Lol. The Swamp takes care of its own. Always.

 

 

 

None of the individuals who donated to the Clinton campaign nor the woman who objected to the FBI made the jury.

 

That quote is pulled from this article

 

3 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

 

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/may/19/judge-sussmann-trial-denies-prosecution-request-re/

 

 

 

Turley lies. You eat it up.

Sad.

[ALF]

At least Trump never appointed any judges who would favor him , especially to the Supreme Court 

[BillStime]

Fool me once - shame on you - fool me a billion times - I must be MAGA.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by BillStime

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[BillStime]

“They protect their own”

Retweeted from DR:

 

Just like the cult in DC protected their own:

 

[716er]

19 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Fool me once - shame on you - fool me a billion times - I just be MAGA.

 

 

 

Everything is rigged except when it isn't.

 

The election was rigged for Biden but not rigged for the down ballot Republicans that were on the same ballot.

 

The media is rigged for Biden except when they report on his stupidity.

 

The jurors are rigged for the Sussman trial but just wait until we get Danchenko in VA.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

First class juror there............lol

 

 

 

It’s ok for someone to lie to the FBI apparently since there are more important things in the nation to worry about.

 

🤔

[Doc]

With the level of stupidity and/or corruption on that jury, it's hard to believe Sussman got off...

[wnyguy]

18 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

First class juror there............lol

 

 

 

It’s ok for someone to lie to the FBI apparently since there are more important things in the nation to worry about.

 

🤔

That should be used as a defense strategy, "Sure I robbed that bank but there are bigger crimes going on around here that we should worry about. I rest my case."

[ChiGoose]

31 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well thought out exchange of views, but I'll ask the same question I do anytime I see anyone quoting the validity of the Mueller investigation.  Given the zeal of the anti-Trump camp to nail him for the smallest of infractions like j-walking, why hasn't anyone been indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crime or campaign violation if the investigation produced evidence of illegal activities such as conspiring with a foreign entity against the government?  How can something that goes on for over a year and spends millions of dollars on legal fees and lawyers and interviews that produced tons of evidence just get a readout and then gets dropped?  My read of the summary was Mueller's conclusion that they might be innocent but we can't prove it.  A conclusion that defies the basic premise of the entire legal system.  A presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt, not disprove it.       

 

I think these are important questions and I will do my best to answer them. I will note that political news coverage is often of poor quality and legal news coverage is almost certainly to be of extremely poor quality. Therefore, coverage of a legal investigation with political implications is generally going to be terrible. Therefore, I want to stick to the facts of the investigation and not how it was covered or received by different camps. We can all pull hysterical coverage from various sources over the last several years to try to prove a point but that would just devolve into talking past each other instead of having a real, fact-based conversation.

 

1. [W]hy hasn't anyone been indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crime or campaign violation if the investigation produced evidence of illegal activities such as conspiring with a foreign entity against the government? 

 

The biggest thing that differs in the Mueller report versus how it was covered in the public was the scope. Mueller notes that his remit from from the Department of Justice (DoJ) was to "investigate 'the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,' including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign." (Mueller Report, p1)

 

In accordance with this instruction, Mueller made the determination that, since "collude" is not a crime under federal law, he would apply the framework of conspiracy. Under federal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between to or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy)

 

So if you're reading through this, you can probably start to see where the problem for the Left is going to be. Mueller saw his scope as limited to what the Russians were doing and whether or not the Trump campaign had an actual agreement with them to commit crimes. He did not believe he had authority to look into Trump's potential business crimes or essentially any crimes that weren't a conspiracy with the Russians unless he happened to stumble upon them when looking into a potential conspiracy with the Russians.

 

As we know, Mueller was unable to establish that the Trump Campaign had an actual agreement with the Russians to interfere in the campaign. Which should not have been surprising because they did not need a formal agreement to coordinate with and benefit from the Russians.

 

So even though Mueller found ample evidence of the Trump Campaign meeting with Russians, soliciting help from them, benefitting from them, and providing them with information, if there was no actual agreement to a specific end (interfering in an election), Mueller did not feel he could charge a conspiracy.

 

Despite this, Mueller did secure 8 guilty pleas and a trial conviction based on crimes he did encounter during the investigation. Additionally, he spends over 100 pages documenting the connections between the Trump Campaign and the Russians.

 

Importantly, Mueller documented in Volume II that Trump himself had almost certainly broken the law by obstructing justice on several occasions. However, given that he felt he could not charge a sitting president, he declined to formally accuse Trump. This clearly reads as a roadmap to impeachment, especially since he cites to the Constitution's impeachment clause when explaining his rationale.

 

Yet, it seems that the Dems, knowing that they could never secure a win in the Senate no matter the facts, declined to take Mueller up on this and let Trump skate because they felt it wouldn't help their political position to get bogged down in a losing fight.

 

2. How can something that goes on for over a year and spends millions of dollars on legal fees and lawyers and interviews that produced tons of evidence just get a readout and then gets dropped?

 

Lots of reasons, but mostly: politics.

 

Democratic leadership was happy to hand off most of the investigative responsibilities to Mueller. While the Senate did have a serious intelligence investigation going on, the House was controlled by Republicans who did not want a real investigation so they let Devin Nunes just mess around to distract people. When Pelosi took the gavel in 2018, she likely had a mistaken idea of what Mueller was up to, assumed he had the goods and was happy to not launch a serious investigation into other potential crimes herself because it would be seen as partisan and cause her problems.

 

When the report finally came out in 2019, it was preceded by a misleading summary by Attorney General Bill Barr, allowing Trump and his team to claim total vindication before the actual text was available to refute that claim. There were days of Trump's team being elated and Dems being dejected. By the time we had the actual facts, the narrative was already set.

 

The Senate's bipartisan investigation actually did note that the Trump campaign had regular contact with Russians, expected to benefit from them and posed a threat to US national security. But the full report came out in late 2020, too late to make any major noise.

 

3. My read of the summary was Mueller's conclusion that they might be innocent but we can't prove it.  A conclusion that defies the basic premise of the entire legal system.  A presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt, not disprove it.       

 

Mueller essentially concludes that, even though the Trump campaign was in constant contact with the Russians and benefitting from them, the elements of a conspiracy were not met since they did not have an actual agreement to interfere in the election.

 

He also mentions that he had the power to say if he felt that Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice, but that the evidence did not support such a statement. Still, he declines to formally accuse Trump of a crime because he believes he cannot indict Trump as a sitting president, and therefore Trump would not have a chance to clear his name at trial. Instead, he points out all of the areas that Trump met the elements of obstruction of justice and noted that the Constitutional remedy at hand was impeachment (this was important in his eventual Congressional testimony as he stated that a president can be indicted after they leave office).

 

Then, the Democratic Party did its most favorite thing in the whole world: shoot itself in the foot. With the exception of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Dems misplayed this entire thing from day one. Instead of having their own investigations into things that may be on the outskirts of Mueller's scope or other potential crimes (like Trump's business dealings), laying the groundwork for establishing (through their investigations and Mueller's) that Trump is corrupt and dangerous while building the case for impeachment, they sat on their hands and were shocked when they realized that Mueller wasn't going to do their work for them. At that point, they had failed to prep the country for an impeachment trial (even if they knew they would lose in the Senate), the winds had shifted against them and they were left standing there with no idea what to do next.

 

The bottom line is that the Trump campaign worked with, and benefitted from the Russians for years but because they did not meet all of the elements of a conspiracy, Mueller did not charge them. Mueller clearly felt that Trump should have been impeached at least for the obstruction but the Dems blew that opportunity because their leadership is generally incompetent. 

 

[Gene Frenkle]

Benghazi 2.0

Election Fraud 2.0

 

If you don't like the result, it must have been fixed!

 

I am entertained. This is why I am here.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

23 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think these are important questions and I will do my best to answer them. I will note that political news coverage is often of poor quality and legal news coverage is almost certainly to be of extremely poor quality. Therefore, coverage of a legal investigation with political implications is generally going to be terrible. Therefore, I want to stick to the facts of the investigation and not how it was covered or received by different camps. We can all pull hysterical coverage from various sources over the last several years to try to prove a point but that would just devolve into talking past each other instead of having a real, fact-based conversation.

 

1. [W]hy hasn't anyone been indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced for any crime or campaign violation if the investigation produced evidence of illegal activities such as conspiring with a foreign entity against the government? 

 

The biggest thing that differs in the Mueller report versus how it was covered in the public was the scope. Mueller notes that his remit from from the Department of Justice (DoJ) was to "investigate 'the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,' including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign." (Mueller Report, p1)

 

In accordance with this instruction, Mueller made the determination that, since "collude" is not a crime under federal law, he would apply the framework of conspiracy. Under federal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between to or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy)

 

So if you're reading through this, you can probably start to see where the problem for the Left is going to be. Mueller saw his scope as limited to what the Russians were doing and whether or not the Trump campaign had an actual agreement with them to commit crimes. He did not believe he had authority to look into Trump's potential business crimes or essentially any crimes that weren't a conspiracy with the Russians unless he happened to stumble upon them when looking into a potential conspiracy with the Russians.

 

As we know, Mueller was unable to establish that the Trump Campaign had an actual agreement with the Russians to interfere in the campaign. Which should not have been surprising because they did not need a formal agreement to coordinate with and benefit from the Russians.

 

So even though Mueller found ample evidence of the Trump Campaign meeting with Russians, soliciting help from them, benefitting from them, and providing them with information, if there was no actual agreement to a specific end (interfering in an election), Mueller did not feel he could charge a conspiracy.

 

Despite this, Mueller did secure 8 guilty pleas and a trial conviction based on crimes he did encounter during the investigation. Additionally, he spends over 100 pages documenting the connections between the Trump Campaign and the Russians.

 

Importantly, Mueller documented in Volume II that Trump himself had almost certainly broken the law by obstructing justice on several occasions. However, given that he felt he could not charge a sitting president, he declined to formally accuse Trump. This clearly reads as a roadmap to impeachment, especially since he cites to the Constitution's impeachment clause when explaining his rationale.

 

Yet, it seems that the Dems, knowing that they could never secure a win in the Senate no matter the facts, declined to take Mueller up on this and let Trump skate because they felt it wouldn't help their political position to get bogged down in a losing fight.

 

2. How can something that goes on for over a year and spends millions of dollars on legal fees and lawyers and interviews that produced tons of evidence just get a readout and then gets dropped?

 

Lots of reasons, but mostly: politics.

 

Democratic leadership was happy to hand off most of the investigative responsibilities to Mueller. While the Senate did have a serious intelligence investigation going on, the House was controlled by Republicans who did not want a real investigation so they let Devin Nunes just mess around to distract people. When Pelosi took the gavel in 2018, she likely had a mistaken idea of what Mueller was up to, assumed he had the goods and was happy to not launch a serious investigation into other potential crimes herself because it would be seen as partisan and cause her problems.

 

When the report finally came out in 2019, it was preceded by a misleading summary by Attorney General Bill Barr, allowing Trump and his team to claim total vindication before the actual text was available to refute that claim. There were days of Trump's team being elated and Dems being dejected. By the time we had the actual facts, the narrative was already set.

 

The Senate's bipartisan investigation actually did note that the Trump campaign had regular contact with Russians, expected to benefit from them and posed a threat to US national security. But the full report came out in late 2020, too late to make any major noise.

 

3. My read of the summary was Mueller's conclusion that they might be innocent but we can't prove it.  A conclusion that defies the basic premise of the entire legal system.  A presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt, not disprove it.       

 

Mueller essentially concludes that, even though the Trump campaign was in constant contact with the Russians and benefitting from them, the elements of a conspiracy were not met since they did not have an actual agreement to interfere in the election.

 

He also mentions that he had the power to say if he felt that Trump was innocent of obstruction of justice, but that the evidence did not support such a statement. Still, he declines to formally accuse Trump of a crime because he believes he cannot indict Trump as a sitting president, and therefore Trump would not have a chance to clear his name at trial. Instead, he points out all of the areas that Trump met the elements of obstruction of justice and noted that the Constitutional remedy at hand was impeachment (this was important in his eventual Congressional testimony as he stated that a president can be indicted after they leave office).

 

Then, the Democratic Party did its most favorite thing in the whole world: shoot itself in the foot. With the exception of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Dems misplayed this entire thing from day one. Instead of having their own investigations into things that may be on the outskirts of Mueller's scope or other potential crimes (like Trump's business dealings), laying the groundwork for establishing (through their investigations and Mueller's) that Trump is corrupt and dangerous while building the case for impeachment, they sat on their hands and were shocked when they realized that Mueller wasn't going to do their work for them. At that point, they had failed to prep the country for an impeachment trial (even if they knew they would lose in the Senate), the winds had shifted against them and they were left standing there with no idea what to do next.

 

The bottom line is that the Trump campaign worked with, and benefitted from the Russians for years but because they did not meet all of the elements of a conspiracy, Mueller did not charge them. Mueller clearly felt that Trump should have been impeached at least for the obstruction but the Dems blew that opportunity because their leadership is generally incompetent. 

 

The short, and correct version of the bottom line is no collusion, no obstruction, just a whole lot of people sowing seeds of distrust in our political process.  

 

 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The short, and correct version of the bottom line is no collusion, no obstruction, just a whole lot of people sowing seeds of distrust in our political process.  

 

 

 

That is a blatant and intentional misreading of the facts that leads to the sowing of seeds of distrust.

 

Collusions isn't a crime and Mueller was not investigating collusion.

 

Mueller found ample evidence of obstruction but could not charge a sitting president.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

20 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

Benghazi 2.0

Election Fraud 2.0

 

If you don't like the result, it must have been fixed!

 

I am entertained. This is why I am here.

Gene Freckle gets it.  

 

Russiagate 2.0

Ukrainamania 2.0

Mueller 2.0

Durham 2.0

 

 

(I don't understand the point.o system so to be safe i went with 2point0 like you, Gene)

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

That is a blatant and intentional misreading of the facts that leads to the sowing of seeds of distrust.

 

Collusions isn't a crime and Mueller was not investigating collusion.

 

Mueller found ample evidence of obstruction but could not charge a sitting president.

Hogwash.  I don't make the rules up, I just observed what was alleged, what was said, the actions of key players and the outcome.  I'd love a fair and equitable distribution of power and a move away from weaponizing the DOJ against political opponents.  Sadly, it doesn't exist in Washington and folks like you are part of the problem.  You seem inordinately comfortable with seeds of distrust being sown, you just want to choose the seeds. 

 

A thorough review of the Mueller manifesto by AG Barr and the DOJ led to an entirely different conclusion than that which you've offered over these past few days and weeks.  You know this but simply choose to disregard that analysis.  I've done nothing more than consider the totality to the multi-year-multi-million-dollar investigation, the actions and words of democrats in positions of leadership and reject your summary as superficial and biased. 

 

I do want you to know that if I could absolutely prove you were not guilty of personal bias, I would be willing to say it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

16 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I just observed what was alleged, what was said, the actions of key players and the outcome.

 

Quote

A thorough review of the Mueller manifesto by AG Barr and the DOJ

 

I'm just a man, typing on a message board, asking people to please read primary sources