ADVERTISEMENT

All you Durham Report prognosticators ........

Riveting- said:
If it makes no difference, why did you state it ?

It makes no sense that he would want to delay, so tell us the reason - or did you just make that up?
Click to expand...
I didn't state it. Sussman stated it under threat of perjury, and Durham acted as if it never happened. Instead, Durham went with testimony of a guy who changed his story no fewer than 3 times, then said "I don't remember" -- wait for it -- 116 times.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
Haha omg the lies and bullshit. He billed the campaign for his time at the FBI!!!
Click to expand...
LOL. No, he did not.

He didn't expense the transportation for the meeting either.

Further, despite having a receipt expensed to the HRC campaign for thumb drives, Durham made no showing that the thumb drives expensed were the thumb drives Sussman gave to Baker. Why do you imagine Durham didn't try to tie the thumb drives to the ones purchased for the HRC campaign? So vexing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35 and ManiacallySteve
mk_peters said:
LOL. No, he did not.

He didn't expense the transportation for the meeting either.

Further, despite having a receipt expensed to the HRC campaign for thumb drives, Durham made no showing that the thumb drives expensed were the thumb drives Sussman gave to Baker. Why do you imagine Durham didn't try to tie the thumb drives to the ones purchased for the HRC campaign? So vexing.
Click to expand...
Keilty also displayed an email Sussmann sent two days before the November election, asking that 3.3 hours of work be recorded for the Clinton campaign on Sept. 19 for “work and comms regarding confidential project.”

“I think it’s most accurate to say it was done on behalf of my client,” Sussmann said then. He didn’t say which client during that testimony but, in addition to the Clinton campaign, Sussmann was representing a tech executive, Rodney Joffe. Joffe was one of several tech experts who were gathering data in the summer and fall of 2016 about the alleged data link between Trump and Alfa Bank, a Russian bank with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting-
mk_peters said:
I didn't state it. Sussman stated it under threat of perjury, and Durham acted as if it never happened. Instead, Durham went with testimony of a guy who changed his story no fewer than 3 times, then said "I don't remember" -- wait for it -- 116 times.
Click to expand...
You wrote above that "He wanted the meeting to help the FBI delay the Alfa Bank story from being published, which is exactly what happened."

Did he say that in testimony, but without stating why he wanted to "help delay the ..story from being published"? Why did he want to "delay it" - and how could the FBI "delay" it?

You wrote this stuff as if it makes sense to you as a non-rube, but you seem unable to explain it.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
Keilty also displayed an email Sussmann sent two days before the November election, asking that 3.3 hours of work be recorded for the Clinton campaign on Sept. 19 for “work and comms regarding confidential project.”

“I think it’s most accurate to say it was done on behalf of my client,” Sussmann said then. He didn’t say which client during that testimony but, in addition to the Clinton campaign, Sussmann was representing a tech executive, Rodney Joffe. Joffe was one of several tech experts who were gathering data in the summer and fall of 2016 about the alleged data link between Trump and Alfa Bank, a Russian bank with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Click to expand...
The indictment was for lying when Sussman said he was not meeting on behalf of a client. You assume that because he had a client, he must have met on behalf of the client(s). Instead, Sussman offered a plausible reason for the meeting other than on behalf of his client(s), and that plausible reason ended up happening exactly as Sussman explained while he was under threat of perjury, i.e. the NYT sat on the Alfa Bank story.
 
Riveting- said:
You wrote above that "He wanted the meeting to help the FBI delay the Alfa Bank story from being published, which is exactly what happened."

Did he say that in testimony, but without stating why he wanted to "help delay the ..story from being published"? Why did he want to "delay it" - and how could the FBI "delay" it?

You wrote this stuff as if it makes sense to you as a non-rube, but you seem unable to explain it.
Click to expand...
Sussman said it under threat of perjury:

O So you had had a private .. you had had a separate conversation with a representative of the FBI regarding this same information?
A Yes.
O And who in the FBI did you speak with?
A lt's general counsel.
O Okay. And that would be?
A Jim Baker.

UNCLASSIFIED, COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

UNCLASSIFIED, COMMITTEE SENSITIVE

O And when did that conversation occur on or about?
A Middle of September 2016.
O And what did Mr. Baker advise you to do?
A Advise me to do?
O Yeah. Or what was -- what did he - how did he respond to the
information that you conveyed to him?
A He said thank you.
O Did he offer any follow-on -
A No.
O -- engagements, or did he promise that he would pass it on?
A But to be clear, I told him I didn't want any. I mean, I was sharing information, and I remember telling him at the outset that I was meeting with him specificallyi because any information involving a political candidate, but particularly information of this sort involving potential relationship or activity with a foreign government was highly volatile and controversial.
And I thought and I remember telling him that it would be a not-so-nice thing - I probably used a word more stronger than "not so nice" -- to dump some information like this on a case agent and create some sort of a problem. And so l was coming to him mostly because l wanted him to be able to decide whether or not to act or not to act, or to share or not to share, with information I was bringing him to insulate or protect the Bureau or -- | don't know, I just thought he would know best what to do or not to do, including nothing at the time.
Click to expand...
 
mk_peters said:
Sussman said it under threat of perjury:
Click to expand...
Crickets?

Here's some more:

A Oh, excuse me. I did not recall a sort of minor conversation that I had with Mr. Baker, which I don't think it was necessarily related to the question you asked me, but l just wanted to tell you about a phone call that I had with him 2 days after I met with him, just because I had forgotten it. When I met with him, I shared with him this information, and I told him that there was also a news organization that has or had the information. And he called me 2 days later on my mobile phone and asked me for the name of the journalist or publication, because the Bureau was going to ask the public -- was going to ask the journalist or the publication to hold their story and not publish it, and said that like it was urgent and the request came from the top of the Bureau. So anyway, it was, you know, a 5-rninute, if that, phone conversation just for that purpose.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mk_peters said:
Sussman said it under threat of perjury:
Click to expand...

"And so l was coming to him mostly because l wanted him to be able to decide whether or not to act or not to act, or to share or not to share, with information I was bringing him to insulate or protect the Bureau or -- | don't know, I just thought he would know best what to do or not to do, including nothing at the time."

From this testimony, where did you get the idea that "He wanted the meeting to help the FBI delay the Alfa Bank story from being published, which is exactly what happened." ? That is a slant that is not indicated in this testimony, right?
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
And who was at the top of the bureau...oh let me guess
Click to expand...
So, does part of your conspiracy theory involve the top of the FBI killing a story that would help Clinton? When those same cretins stood in front of cameras to to tell the public that they were reopening the Clinton server investigation, was that to help her?
 
Riveting- said:
"And so l was coming to him mostly because l wanted him to be able to decide whether or not to act or not to act, or to share or not to share, with information I was bringing him to insulate or protect the Bureau or -- | don't know, I just thought he would know best what to do or not to do, including nothing at the time."

From this testimony, where did you get the idea that "He wanted the meeting to help the FBI delay the Alfa Bank story from being published, which is exactly what happened." ? That is a slant that is not indicated in this testimony, right?
Click to expand...
Keep reading
 
mk_peters said:
So, does part of your conspiracy theory involve the top of the FBI killing a story that would help Clinton? When those same cretins stood in front of cameras to to tell the public that they were reopening the Clinton server investigation, was that to help her?
Click to expand...
Bro thank Mr. Weiners.
 
mk_peters said:
Keep reading
Click to expand...
Same question. You said "He wanted the meeting to help the FBI delay the Alfa Bank story from being published, which is exactly what happened." ?

The 'keep reading' info says Baker called him 2 days after the meeting to get the media name. Thus, there was no discussion of "delaying the story" during the meeting, which means he didn't call the meeting to delay the story, as you have been claiming, right?
 
Riveting- said:
Same question. You said "He wanted the meeting to help the FBI delay the Alfa Bank story from being published, which is exactly what happened." ?

The 'keep reading' info says Baker called him 2 days after the meeting to get the media name. Thus, there was no discussion of "delaying the story" during the meeting, which means he didn't call the meeting to delay the story, as you have been claiming, right?
Click to expand...
Oh, okay. LOL. He met with them and gave them a heads up, i.e. to help the FBI. What did you think was going to be the result of him telling the FBI that a news service had this information? Did you think the FBI was going to let it ride and get caught flat footed?
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
haha ok
Click to expand...
For Democrats and many in the media, Hillary Clinton has long held a Voldemort-like status as “She who must not be named” in scandals.
Click to expand...
She who must not be named? Are they serious?

It was one of the most successful disinformation campaigns in American politics ...
Click to expand...

It still hasn't been investigated. The investigators didn't even look at the data. It might be crap, it's probably crap, but it was never fully investigated.

There is a strikingly familiar pattern in both the Steele dossier — which became the basis for the Russia collusion investigation — and the Alfa Bank tale.
Click to expand...
Nope. The Steele dossier was not the basis of the Russia investigation.

As the FBI’s Baker and other witnesses told jurors this week, there was in fact “nothing there.”
Click to expand...
They told the court that they didn't open the files.
 
mk_peters said:
She who must not be named? Are they serious?



It still hasn't been investigated. The investigators didn't even look at the data. It might be crap, it's probably crap, but it was never fully investigated.


Nope. The Steele dossier was not the basis of the Russia investigation.


They told the court that they didn't open the files.
Click to expand...
The Steele dossier was cited in FISA warrant requests.
 
TopSecretBoiler said:
The James Baker under investigation for press leaks, "left" the fbi, and was recruited (attempted) by sussman to perkins coie.
Click to expand...
And then threatened by Durham until he changed his story to match Durham's theory, but only after Durham refreshed his recollection with cherry-picked documents which matched Durham's theory but not with other documents that did not match Durham's theory.

Durham is not a good investigator.

You guys didn't really follow this very closely, did you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
mk_peters said:
And then threatened by Durham until he changed his story to match Durham's theory, but only after Durham refreshed his recollection with cherry-picked documents which matched Durham's theory but not with other documents that did not match Durham's theory.

Durham is not a good investigator.

You guys didn't really follow this very closely, did you?
Click to expand...
I mean...delusional.
 
mk_peters said:
For Carter Page, who hadn't been part of the Trump campaign for over 6 months (or ever if you ask Trump).
Click to expand...
That's not what the FBI wanted the FISA judge to believe...the FBI believes that the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals
 
mk_peters said:
Oh, okay. LOL. He met with them and gave them a heads up, i.e. to help the FBI. What did you think was going to be the result of him telling the FBI that a news service had this information? Did you think the FBI was going to let it ride and get caught flat footed?
Click to expand...
Please, a sleazy lawyer like Sussman wanting to "help" the FBI?

No, I think what he thought, that is to say, what HC thought the result was going to be that the "news service" was going to be able to say the FBI is looking into this. I base this on a real "news service", WSJ:

"In short, the Clinton campaign created the Trump-Alfa allegation, fed it to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true."

The credulous press in this case was Slate.

NYT was expected to join, but let HC down on 10-31-2016:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

Later on the same day, a pissed-off HC tweeted:

"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank".

It all fits, MK.
 
mk_peters said:
And then threatened by Durham until he changed his story to match Durham's theory, but only after Durham refreshed his recollection with cherry-picked documents which matched Durham's theory but not with other documents that did not match Durham's theory.

Durham is not a good investigator.

You guys didn't really follow this very closely, did you?
Click to expand...
Closely enough to know your repeated claim that Sussman wanted to meet to "help the FBI delay the Alfa Bank story from being published" was bs.

I am tempted to call you a 'half-rube', but as Purdue grad and gentleman I will refrain from such childish insults.
 
mk_peters said:
And then threatened by Durham until he changed his story to match Durham's theory, but only after Durham refreshed his recollection with cherry-picked documents which matched Durham's theory but not with other documents that did not match Durham's theory.

Durham is not a good investigator.

You guys didn't really follow this very closely, did you?
Click to expand...
They saw some headlines, that was enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk_peters
indy35 said:
They saw some headlines, that was enough.
Click to expand...
The Sussmann trial was packaged for right wing news. There was only one witness to Sussmann’s alleged lie. The rest was theatre for the easily distracted. It was a one witness trial that took two weeks to try. LOL. That is ****ing absurd.
 
mk_peters said:
The Sussmann trial was packaged for right wing news. There was only one witness to Sussmann’s alleged lie. The rest was theatre for the easily distracted. It was a one witness trial that took two weeks to try. LOL. That is ****ing absurd.
Click to expand...
One witness and a text. LOL
 
mk_peters said:
The Sussmann trial was packaged for right wing news. There was only one witness to Sussmann’s alleged lie. The rest was theatre for the easily distracted. It was a one witness trial that took two weeks to try. LOL. That is ****ing absurd.
Click to expand...
And it had nothing to do with the origins of the Russia investigation.......which is what Durham was tasked to investigate. It had already started when Sussman went to Baker.

Even if the verdict was guilty, the act was irrelevant to the issue....but worthy of an attempt to declare victory by the republicans. Anything Durham says or does is jumped on by the trump republicans as some sort of proof......when in fact, like this sham of a prosecution, it's simply Durham trying to justify his investigation. This stuff is not even relevant to the job he was appointed to do.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Crayfish57 and mk_peters
mk_peters said:
A text which you misrepresent. All the facts point to Sussmann doing exactly what was written in that text.

🤡 show
Click to expand...
There was no question about the lie, just its impact. Sussmann's lawyers repeatedly harped on the "materiality" element, which required prosecutors to prove that Sussmann's alleged lie was relevant enough to potentially impact the FBI's work. Your reading comprehension is a clown show.
 
mk_peters said:
A text which you misrepresent. All the facts point to Sussmann doing exactly what was written in that text.

🤡 show
Click to expand...
Wasn't the jury prohibited by the judge from considering the text in its verdict?

Asking you since you followed the trial so closely (yet could not accurately explain the alleged purpose of the suss-fbi meeting).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SKYDOG

Cook county states attorney race still undecided.

Replies
3
Views
227
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
SIBoiler2
S
SKYDOG

Free speech not allowed here.

Replies
113
Views
3K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
TheGunner
TheGunner
TMA62

Purdue departed for Phoenix this afternoon.

Replies
30
Views
2K
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
boilerzz
boilerzz
D

Purdue recruiting Trent Sisley…

Replies
11
Views
1K
The Depot
Casey Bartley
Casey Bartley
F

SBNation Writeup on Edey's likely draft position

Replies
3
Views
941
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
rgarlitz
R
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back