Michael Sussmann the fall guy?

[SunsetBengal]

Judge denied Sussmann's attempt to get the indictment thrown out, he's going to trial for essentially attempting to frame a US President. What is a punishment befitting of one who would attempt to frame the POTUS?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cia-has-known-trump-russia-collusion-data-not-technically-plausible-since-2017-durham-says/ar-AAWkJup?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=51fa70d125b3453ea47e0e2ec8684ad3

Quote:Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann was indicted last September for allegedly concealing his clients — Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and “Tech Executive-1,” known to be former Neustar executive Rodney Joffe — from FBI general counsel James Baker in September 2016 when he pushed since-debunked claims of a secret back channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

The September 2021 indictment alleged Sussmann lied when he said he was not providing the domain name system data allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client when he was, in fact, doing so on behalf of Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

Durham is also scrutinizing claims Sussmann made to the CIA in February 2017 about Russian phones, called YotaPhones, which the Democratic cybersecurity lawyer had claimed linked former President Donald Trump to these phones near the White House.

Durham revealed Friday that while the FBI “did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated” as it was being pushed to government agencies, the CIA “concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data” — the Alfa Bank and YotaPhone information — was not “technically plausible,” did not “withstand technical scrutiny,” was “user created and not machine/tool generated," “contained gaps,” and “conflicted with [itself].” The special counsel said his office “has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard.”

Durham said his prosecutors expect to cite evidence at trial reflecting that “the FBI and Agency-2 concluded that the Russian Bank-1 allegations were untrue and unsupported."

The special counsel said earlier this year that Sussmann told the CIA about the dubious Russian bank connection during the 2017 meeting in which he again allegedly misled about who his client was. Sussmann “provided data which he claimed reflected purportedly suspicious DNS lookups by these entities of internet protocol addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider” that also “demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations," according to the special counsel.

“The Special Counsel’s Office has identified no support for these allegations,” Durham wrote in February.

JUDGE DENIES SUSSMANN EFFORT TO TOSS DURHAM INDICTMENT

Durham revealed this year he has evidence Joffe “exploited” DNS internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President. The special counsel said in October that Joffe exploited his company's access to data at a "high-ranking executive branch office" both before and after the 2016 election.

In December 2019, Michael Horowitz, the inspector general of the Justice Department, said the FBI "concluded by early February 2017 that there were no such links" between Trump and Alfa Bank.

When asked about the Alfa Bank claims during House testimony in summer 2019, special counsel Robert Mueller said, "My belief at this point is that it’s not true.” Mueller also "did not establish" any criminal collusion between Trump and Russia.

A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report released in August 2020 said investigators “did not find that the DNS activity reflected the existence of substantive or covert communications between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization personnel.”

The special counsel’s September 2021 press release reiterated: “The FBI ultimately determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of a secret communications channel.”

Alfa Bank said in 2016 the claims were “patently false.”

Sussmann’s lawyers have sought to block Durham from providing certain details related to the accuracy of the Alfa Bank claims, but the special counsel told the judge “the defendant’s efforts to pre-emptively bar additional evidence concerning the accuracy of the data and allegations at issue also should be rejected.”

The special counsel said the approach to this issue would depend upon the “particular defenses and arguments that the defendant raises” during the trial, with Durham saying that if Sussmann “were to concede or decline to dispute the fact that no secret channel of communications actually existed” between the Trump Organization email server and Alfa Bank, then prosecutors “would not seek to offer proof concerning the ultimate accuracy and reliability of the relevant data.”

Durham also pushed back on Sussmann’s efforts to limit the testimony of special agent David Martin of the FBI Cyber Unit, with the special counsel saying if the defendant attempted to obtain trial testimony about the accuracy of the data he provided, then Martin would explain the data "did not support the conclusions set forth in the primary white paper which the defendant provided to the FBI.”

The special counsel said Martin would also testify that “numerous statements in the white paper were inaccurate and/or overstated” and that people familiar with areas such as DNS data “would know that such statements lacked support and were inaccurate and/or overstated.”

[Sled21]

Crickets....Crickets....Crickets.....

I'm just going to go ahead and get out in front of this one and say Michael Sussmann did not hang himself.....

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2022, 02:07 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Crickets....Crickets....Crickets.....

I'm just going to go ahead and get out in front of this one and say Michael Sussmann did not hang himself.....

How about boiled in oil? 

[Sled21]

(04-18-2022, 02:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: How about boiled in oil? 

He's got dirt on the Clinton's. His lifespan is in question.

[*michaelsean*]

Glad I'm not going to be a juror on that one. I didn't understand most of what I just read.

[Sled21]

(04-18-2022, 02:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Glad I'm not going to be a juror on that one.  I didn't understand most of what I just read.

Bottom line, Clinton and the DNC spied on the Trump campaign, attempted to frame him when he won, and then spied on him in the White House. Sussmann took false information to the FBI to facilitate this, lied to them and said he was not doing that for any client, when he was. This is actually uncharted territory as far as scandals.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2022, 02:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Bottom line, Clinton and the DNC spied on the Trump campaign, attempted to frame him when he won, and then spied on him in the White House. Sussmann took false information to the FBI to facilitate this, lied to them and said he was not doing that for any client, when he was. This is actually uncharted territory as far as scandals.

Yes, and everyone, regardless of political party affiliation, should want to see this case tried.  If guilty, the punishment needs to be so stern as such to deter future campaigns from attempting any similar such stunts.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2022, 02:07 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Crickets....Crickets....Crickets.....

Yep, I wonder why?  Just as it was important for every American to want to see justice brought down upon the Jan 6 rioters, every American should want to see justice come down on Michael Sussmann, as well as the clients and organizations that put him up to such a vile, despicable crime.

[basballguy]

it doesn't matter. The narrative has already been advertised and sold to the blue mob. All anyone will remember is "Trump colluded with Russia" even though it was never true.

[StoneTheCrow]

(04-18-2022, 04:48 PM)basballguy Wrote: it doesn't matter. The narrative has already been advertised and sold to the blue mob. All anyone will remember is "Trump colluded with Russia" even though it was never true.

The playbook.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2022, 04:48 PM)basballguy Wrote: it doesn't matter.  The narrative has already been advertised and sold to the blue mob.  All anyone will remember is "Trump colluded with Russia" even though it was never true.

I may have to tune into MSNBC one time, just to watch Rachel Maddown's head explode upon the revelation that "Russia, Russia, Russia" was really just an iteration of Crooked Hillary and the DNC.  

[NATI BENGALS]

Sure sounds like a fall guy. I’ll be interested to see how it plays out. didn’t even need him to make stuff up to see a Russian connection.

Why did Trump lie to cover up the meeting in trump tower his son had with a Russian who promised dirt on Hillary?

Why was his secretary of defense so quick to call up Russia and why did Flynn lie to the FBI about it?

Why is Maria Butima, whatever the Russian spies name is, on camera asking trump a question years ago?

Why was a Russian oligarchs jet on the same runway as trumps multiple times as he campaigned?

Why did trump ask Russia on live TV to hack his political opponent?

Why is trump now asking Russia to spy on the family of the current potus? While they rape and murder civilians and destroy a democracy? One he actually tried to blackmail for political gain himself.

Why is he still praising Putin after the atrocities we have all seen?

[*Nately120*]

I long for a day when people look at stuff like this from an "us vs them" perspective that involves commoners vs the elites, rather than a left versus right, thing. Let's face it, the only type of 1/6 "justice" we are seeing is because there are commoners who fell for the narrative the people in power sold them, anyone with power or influence is just going to shrug and say "I didn't make anyone do anything!"

With that being said, I can see why people fall for the allure to see this stuff as left vs right, because at least that way you don't have to get bummed out when 100% of the powerful folks get away with stuff, you can at least cheer your side getting off the hook because they're totally not guilty.

As for this case, as Cris Carter said truthfully before he had to reel it in and act like he was out of line...ya gotta get a fall guy!

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2022, 03:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, and everyone, regardless of political party affiliation, should want to see this case tried.  If guilty, the punishment needs to be so stern as such to deter future campaigns from attempting any similar such stunts.

The issue is that there are a lot of inferences being made by you and others that aren't there. Is it possible he was doing this on the orders of the DNC and/or the Clinton campaign? Sure. You seem to be jumping to conclusions with that, though. What we're going to see is campaigns be more sophisticated in their shady shit. Why don't we have the smoking gun, so to speak, of Sussmann getting his orders to do this from the politicos? If they did give the orders, it was probably more well hidden because lessons have been learned since the Nixon days. Also, if he was working under orders, why hasn't he turned state on people?

There are a lot of questions, there, that if you think critically about what's going on you get left with even more. Not many answers. The answers being fed to folks by the media aren't always correct but they feed into what the audience wants to hear because they already believe it to be true. No one is really talking about it because I don't know of anyone who doesn't think this guy probably lied to investigators. There just isn't evidence of anything more to it at this moment.

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2022, 05:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I long for a day when people look at stuff like this from an "us vs them" perspective that involves commoners vs the elites, rather than a left versus right, thing. Let's face it, the only type of 1/6 "justice" we are seeing is because there are commoners who fell for the narrative the people in power sold them, anyone with power or influence is just going to shrug and say "I didn't make anyone do anything!"

With that being said, I can see why people fall for the allure to see this stuff as left vs right, because at least that way you don't have to get bummed out when 100% of the powerful folks get away with stuff, you can at least cheer your side getting off the hook because they're totally not guilty.

As for this case, as Cris Carter said truthfully before he had to reel it in and act like he was out of line...ya gotta get a fall guy!

I was just responding to the moronic immigration thread when I thought about this post of yours and had this visualization. The media, specifically the right-wing media in this instance, constructs so many straw men for their audience that they fill in this void between the people. They create these imaginary villains that are based in absurd versions of positions and use them as foils so that the people are unable to move their focus to those in power. Unable to realize that the corporate elite are the ones with their boots firmly planted on our necks. It's like a forest of these straw men and there is nowhere to turn without finding another one.

This was not how I should have started my day.

[Sled21]

(04-18-2022, 07:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue is that there are a lot of inferences being made by you and others that aren't there. Is it possible he was doing this on the orders of the DNC and/or the Clinton campaign? Sure. You seem to be jumping to conclusions with that, though. What we're going to see is campaigns be more sophisticated in their shady shit. Why don't we have the smoking gun, so to speak, of Sussmann getting his orders to do this from the politicos? If they did give the orders, it was probably more well hidden because lessons have been learned since the Nixon days. Also, if he was working under orders, why hasn't he turned state on people?

There are a lot of questions, there, that if you think critically about what's going on you get left with even more. Not many answers. The answers being fed to folks by the media aren't always correct but they feed into what the audience wants to hear because they already believe it to be true. No one is really talking about it because I don't know of anyone who doesn't think this guy probably lied to investigators. There just isn't evidence of anything more to it at this moment.

He was the Clinton Campaign's lawyer. Durham is leaking just enough to hint at what is going on. As the Grand Jury continues to indict and people come to trial, that's where we'll see deals being cut for testimony against Clinton. Spying and spreading false rumors about a candidate is one thing that  has gone on forever, taking it into the White House and doing it to a sitting POTUS is something else. Sussmann's attorneys attempted to get it thrown out, and were unsuccessful. As they realize they can't keep this from going to trial, that's when he'll turn.... if he lives that long.

[GMDino]

Just a little update.  Durham, unsurprisingly, is failing.

Many federal prosecutors have lost fewer trials in their entire career than John Durham lost in the past year alone.

It is apparent that his judgment is poor and that he overcharged these cases. His use of the legally meaningless “no collusion” phrase at trial betrays his bias. https://t.co/L05tkm8CNz

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) 

[GMDino]

Today: Durham loses Danchenko case.

May 2022: Durham loses Sussman case.

Past year on the WSJ edit page: ️️️ pic.twitter.com/4bqDHhJGi5

— Bill Grueskin (@BGrueskin) October 18, 2022

[GMDino]

John Durhams record in counts that went to trial.
Convictions: 0
Dismissal: 1
Acquittal: 5

— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) October 18, 2022

[GMDino]

Another of Trump's "only the best" people fails...just like him.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-durhams-investigation-failed-spectacularly-rcna52921

Quote:[color=var(--grey-70)]Why John Durham’s investigation has failed so spectacularly
[color=var(--grey-70)]For years, Team Trump insisted that the Russia scandal was pointless but John Durham’s investigation was real. Republicans had this entirely backward.[/color]
[/color]


[color=var(--grey-70)]Oct. 19, 2022, 8:00 AM EDT
[color=var(--grey-70)]By Steve Benen[/color]
After years of effort, special counsel John Durham and his team had one last chance to prove that their investigation had merit. As NBC News reported, it didn’t go well.
[/color]

Quote:A federal jury acquitted Russian analyst Igor Danchenko on Tuesday on four counts of lying to the FBI in what is expected to be the final case stemming from special counsel John Durham’s three-year probe into the origins of the agency’s investigation into allegations of ties between former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

Prosecutors alleged Danchenko provided false information to the FBI in 2017, as part of its efforts to verify information from Christopher Steele’s dossier on Trump’s alleged Russia ties. The case was thin; jurors noticed; and Danchenko was acquitted.

And at that point, the entire Durham probe appeared to reach an ignominious end.

For those who might benefit from a refresher — you’d be forgiven for thinking, “John Durham’s name sounds familiar, but I can’t remember why I’m supposed to care about him” — let’s revisit our earlier coverage and explain how we arrived at this point.

The original investigation into Trump’s Russia scandal, led by then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller, led to a series of striking findings: The former president’s political operation in 2016 sought, embraced, capitalized on, and lied about Russian assistance — and then took steps to obstruct the investigation into the foreign interference.

The Trump White House wasn’t pleased with the conclusions, but the Justice Department’s inspector general conducted a lengthy probe of the Mueller investigation, and not surprisingly, the IG’s office found nothing improper.

This, of course, only outraged Trump further, so then-Attorney General Bill Barr tapped a federal prosecutor — U.S. Attorney John Durham — to conduct his own investigation into the investigation. That was over three years ago.

At this point, Durham’s investigation into the Russia scandal investigation has lasted longer than Mueller’s original probe of the Russia scandal.
After an extended period of apparent inactivity, the prosecutor last year indicted cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussmann for allegedly having lied to the FBI. The case proved to be baseless; Sussmann was acquitted; and one of the jurors publicly mocked Durham’s team for having taken the case to trial.

Yesterday, Team Durham failed again to secure a conviction — and by all accounts, there won’t be any additional charges filed against anyone. The tale of the tape is brutal:

• Two trials
• Zero convictions
• One provocative resignation
• And a largely meaningless guilty plea from an obscure figure
  

By any fair measure, this is the most embarrassing and inconsequential special counsel investigation in the modern history of American law enforcement.


But the humiliation is not limited to the prosecutor. Every once in a while, Trump still blurts out Durham’s name, hoping the prosecutor might yet bolster some of the former president’s conspiracy theories. As regular readers may recall, the Republican has even suggested at times that Durham’s probe could serve as a possible vehicle for retaliating against his perceived enemies.

So much for that idea.

Over the summer, The New York Times’ Charlie Savage wrote a report questioning why the Durham investigation existed. He added, “Mr. Barr’s mandate to Mr. Durham appears to have been to investigate a series of conspiracy theories.”

Those theories, however, lacked merit, which is why the Durham probe is ending with a whimper.

There is a degree of irony to the circumstances: For years, Team Trump insisted that the Russia scandal was pointless but the Durham investigation was real. It now appears these Republicans had it exactly backward: The Russia scandal was real, and the Durham investigation was pointless.