The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer Allegedly Identified as “Reporter-2” in the Sussmann Indictment

I have a column today in the Hill on the indictment of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann by Special Counsel John Durham. The indictment fills in a great number of gaps on one of the Russian collusion allegations pushed by the Clinton campaign: Alpha bank. Sussmann and others reportedly pushed the implausible claim that the Russian bank served as a conduit for communications between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. The indictment removes the identity of key actors like a “Tech Executive” who used his connections with an Internet company to help the Clinton campaign (and said he was promised a top cyber security position in the widely anticipated Clinton Administration). One of those figures however may have been identified: “Reporter-2.” Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer wrote an article for Slate that seems to track the account of the indictment and, as such, raises questions over his role as a conduit for the Clinton campaign’s effort to spread the false story.

The indictment discusses how Fusion GPS pushed for the publication of the story, telling Foer that it was “time to hurry” on the story.:

“The Investigative Firm Employee’s email stated, ‘time to hurry’ suggesting that Reporter-2 should hurry to publish an article regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In response, Reporter-2 emailed to the Investigative Firm Employee a draft article regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations, along with the cover message: ‘Here’s the first 2500 words.’”

The indictment states Reporter-2 published the article “on or about the following day, October, 31, 2016.” That is when Slate published a piece written by Foer headlined, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?”  The story then was pushed by the Clinton campaign.

Foer has not addressed this close coordination with Fusion, including the showing of an advanced copy of his article. He later stated the following in the Atlantic:

“Every article is an exercise in cost-benefit analysis; each act of publication entails a risk of getting it wrong, and sometimes events force journalists to assume greater risk than they would in other circumstances. Before I published the server story, I asked myself a fairly corny question: How would I sleep the next week if Donald Trump were elected president, knowing that I had sat on a potentially important piece of information? In the end, Trump was elected president, and I still slept badly.”

The cost behind this article is getting it wrong but relying too greatly on a biased source without independent research. Foer states that he was more concerned with missing a chance on the story only to have Trump elected. We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools.

In this case, Foer allegedly coordinated with investigators paid by the Clinton campaign to publish a story that had little or no basis. Even the researchers quoted in the indictment objected that the theory was unsupported and could bring public ridicule. Yet, the campaign continued to push the story and Foer ran it after allegedly sending an advance copy of his article to Fusion.

The next question is who is the “Tech executive”?

286 thoughts on “The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer Allegedly Identified as “Reporter-2” in the Sussmann Indictment”

  1. Anonymous is trying to push the idea that Trump benefitted from the Russians. Most reasonably intelligent people know otherwise, but who said this turkey is reasonably intelligent? He is a liar and a deceiver. This is what is happening right now.

    U.S. touts new project to bolster Tajik-Afghan border, as Biden abandons U.S. border wall
    U.S. spending millions in taxpayer dollars to build Border Guard facilities for former Soviet republic of Tajikistan to guard against expected wave of refugees fleeing Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

    While the Biden administration halted construction of the border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the United States is funding border security efforts for Tajikistan, a former Soviet republic trying to keep Afghan insurgents and refugees out.

    …That facility is designed to help Tajik security forces better respond to Afghans seeking to flee Taliban rule or insurgents seeking to cause mischief to its neighbor.

    …”So we are clear: your tax money is spent building a wall and securing the border in Tajikistan and hydro-power in Afghanistan, but our borders are open and the last large hydro power plant built by Army Corp of Engineers in U.S. was in 1979,” Gosar said.

    Continued: “So we are clear: your tax money is spent building a wall and securing the border in Tajikistan and hydro-power in Afghanistan, but our borders are open and the last large hydro power plant built by Army Corp of Engineers in U.S. was in 1979,” Gosar said.

  2. Can somebody tell me if the Biden crime family syndicate is even being investigated? Maybe we need a special prosecutor??

        1. “They’re hiring you?”

          Nope, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea. I would hire an honest prosecutor and staff to non-politically look at what has happened. Biden definitely has done bad things. The question is whether or not any specific acts are against the law.

          That is how I think. You think differently. You will find a prosecutor that will conclude he is innocent and then you will agree. Stupid, but what can we expect from one who lies and deceives.

          1. “Biden definitely has done bad things. The question is whether or not any specific acts are against the law.”

            – Anny

            Influence peddling, money laundering and perjury for openers.

            Worse than being against the law, it is against the American thesis.

            Corruption is the essence of Joe Biden; Joe Biden lacks the intellect and gumption for anything principled or righteous.

  3. “The next question is who is the ‘Tech executive’?”

    And who is the “university” that participated in this hoax?

    1. Anonymous posted, “Rodney Joffe is rumored to be the tech executive” at 9:37 AM. I haven’t seen any confirmation, but I’ve got chores to do.


    It is a comprehensive national Coup D’etat.

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page

    “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

    The co-conspirators are:

    Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

    James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,

    Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,

    Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,

    Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,

    Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,

    Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

    Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley et al.

  5. For All The Damage He Did, Trump Benefitted Russia. So Durham’s Investigation Is Totally Irrelevant!

    Trump spent 4 years methodically attacking all our institutions. His election lies and the January 6th Insurrection did more damage to our democracy than any events since the Civil War.

    Because of Trump, there is now huge doubt about the integrity of our elections. We have entered a doomsday cycle where election losers can claim, with no evidence, they were victims of conspiracies.

    Therefore Professor Turley’s efforts to paint Trump as the ‘victim’ of Christopher Steele, or Hillary Clinton, is not likely to change any minds outside the rightwing bubble. Most Americans know how damaging Trump was. Durham’s Investigation means NOTHING to us!

    1. For the record, no was has been charged with insurrection, so can you still call it an “insurrection”?
      Also, didn’t Hillary Clinton say that the election was stolen? So now, every loser claims foul.

      1. insurrection, noun, a violent uprising against an authority or government.

        “can you still call it an “insurrection”?”


        “didn’t Hillary Clinton say that the election was stolen?”

        No, she conceded on election night.

            1. I have demonstrated countless of times that I am honest and you are not. I provide the most pertinent facts leaving out less pertinent information that might benefit both sides. That is a necessity. You provide only those facts that support the conclusions you drew before knowing any facts. You are a liar and a deceiver.

                1. The problem is over and over again I have proven you a deceptive liar. You have seldom been able to prove anything. That is because of your Stupid reliance on other liars and other people that want to deceive.

          1. No, she says she won the popular vote, which is true. She knows the the difference between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.

          2. ECON, This is how Hillary finished that statement in The Atlantic interview that The National Review refers to:

            “He (Trump) had every opportunity in his inaugural address to reach out to the entire country. And he chose not to. So the unease, the worry, the fear even about what’s going to happen, unfortunately was validated from day one”.

            Hillary is absolutely right. Never, for a moment, did Trump reach out to all Americans. Never! From the opening hours of his presidency, Trump was at war with half the country. And he remains so to this day.

            One should also note that the Atlantic interview was given at about this time last year. Hillary didn’t give this interview right after the 2016 election.

            What’s more, the Obama White House cooperated with Trump’s transition team. Obama didn’t try to pretend Hillary really won and attempt to freeze-out Trump.

              1. Hmmm. You do know that you’ve linked to a 2002 article about the transition from Clinton to Bush, right?

                1. Right. It happens so often with Democrats its easy to choose the wrong one out of many. Same thing happened with Obama’s people. Deliberate and petty destruction.

                  Thanks for reminding me that it is a common thing with Democrats.

            1. What’s more, the Obama White House cooperated with Trump’s transition team.

              Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and transition. That would be the opposite of cooperate.



          Insurrection vs. Riot

          Organized vs. Wanton

          Deliberate vs. Unrestrained

          riot noun

          ri·​ot | \ ˈrī-ət
          Definition of riot

          1a : a violent public disorder specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
          b : public violence, tumult, or disorder
          2 : a random or disorderly profusion the woods were a riot of color
          3 : one that is wildly amusing the new comedy is a riot

          insurrection noun

          in·​sur·​rec·​tion | \ ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən

          Essential Meaning of insurrection
          : a usually violent attempt to take control of a government He led an armed insurrection [=rebellion, uprising] against the elected government. acts of insurrection

          Full Definition of insurrection
          : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

          Insurrection vs Riot – What’s the difference?
          insurrection | riot |

          As nouns the difference between insurrection and riot is that insurrection is an organized opposition to an authority; a mutiny; a rebellion while riot is wanton or unrestrained behavior; uproar; tumult.

          As a verb riot is to create or take part in a riot; to raise an uproar or sedition.


          1. “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government”

            That’s what occurred on Jan. 6, when the insurrectionists (a subset of all the protesters in DC that day) violently interrupted a joint session of Congress — which was in the midst of certifying the EC vote — with the goal of preventing certification.

            For the record, some of the insurrectionists were organized. Many came armed with things like batons and bear spray, some were coordinating with each other in real time via text messages, some were coordinating physically — moving in a column formation (aka “Ranger File”), some brought construction materials for the gallows that were built outside, etc.

            1. “For the record, some of the insurrectionists were organized. “

              What does that mean? Did they have their appointments on their iPhone calendars?

              “Many came armed”

              How many should be included because you are trying again to deceive if not outright lie like you did earlier.

              “some were coordinating physically”

              We know undercover FBI agents were coordinating.

              What a bunch of cr-p you write.

      2. Econ, Hillary conceded to Trump on Election Night of 2016. So show us a credible source that says ‘Hillary claimed the election was stolen’.

            1. Econiseasy says:

              “Really, name calling is your argument? Discussions are what adults have, children use insults.”

              You must be new here! Stick around…

            2. Anyone who wants to can comment anonymously, and several different people do. One of them, who used to post under the name “Allan” and now sometimes posts under the name “S. Meyer” is consumed with some of the other anonymous commenters. He follows us around, insulting us. I agree with you, he’s childish.

              1. It sounds like Anonymous the Stupid trying to prove that all of his Stupid comments aren’t his. He updates us on his status every once in a while to know his status remains unchanged. For the most part, there is Anonymous the Stupid, and his pretend friends.

                1. As EconIsEasy said to you, Allan: “Really, name calling is your argument? Discussions are what adults have, children use insults.”

                  1. Econ may be new to the blog so he is not aware that most of what you say is a lie or deceitful. He might agree with your political views or not, which is OK by me, but I hope no new bloggers appear that lie and deceive like you.

            3. Econ is also the greatest of all the social sciences. My hat is off to you!

              Don’t mind these ankle biters, Econ. They swarm those they fear. After the first bite, you’re immune.

          1. Considering she funded, orchestrated a coup against a US President, and colluded with the liberal media the Russian collusion fake story, yeah, she is conceited all right and a true despot screaming to get out.

            All this knowing she lost a US Presidential election for the second time.

      3. Econ, all the January 6th defendants have yet to be tried. And Congress has yet to wrap its investigation.

        1. You are right, they have not been tried, but none of them have been charged with insurrection.
          Congress does not have the power to make criminal charges.

    2. All the damage trump did ?…WTH ?. 4 Years methodically “all” of our institutions ?. What reality altering drugs are you on ?.
      In a short 8 months this regime in power – whom you no doubt support , have attacked , destroyed , paralyzed , these very institutions. Everything Baizou Biden the terrible has done HAS directly benefited CHINA & RUSSIA. You are absolutely blindly insane not to recognize and see the destruction upon our representative republic this current admin and it’s hacks have wrought on our constitution and institutions.
      Integrity in our elections….a party that demands mass mail in voting , voting in a myriad of electronic means with no way to know whom is voting and how many times they or the dead can or will vote ?….. jeez buddy it’s one particular party brand – demonratzi that is pushing for this end run around our institutions. Massive changes to states voting laws by authoritarian’s of one party brand in several states – done illegally as it was not through the legislatures as constitutionally mandated. Your blind hypocrisy is not by accident. You always drink this early ?.

    3. “For All The Damage He Did, Trump Benefitted Russia. So Durham’s Investigation Is Totally Irrelevant!”

      What a Stupid piece. Trump was right and those that you followed were wrong and were doing illegal things. You provide a lot of nonsense conclusions but no factual data that encompasses what actually was happening. It is a Stupid type of behavior.

      Our institutions have proven to be less than stellar. Take note of the Afghanistan disaster.
      The integrity of our elections are in question and can easily be solved in a fashion done all over the world.
      Democrats are the major cause of election malfeasance, both today and in the past.
      The Steele debacle was a lie created by the Clinton campaign.

      Your use of more than one identity doesn’t hide your Stupidity.

  6. OT

    Meanwhile, the Obama Communist First Division is being reinforced, forward-deployed and conducting an invasion in Del Rio, Texas.

    Have a good weekend, actual Americans.

    1. Meanwhile, the National Archives publishes a “warning label” on the Constitution of the United States of America.

      What!!!??? A warning label on the Constitution? From whom, Karl Marx?

      NARA’s Statement on Potentially Harmful Content

      The Catalog and web pages of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) provide access to many millions of descriptions and digital copies of the permanent records of the United States federal government.

      The Catalog and web pages contain some content that may be harmful or difficult to view. NARA’s records span the history of the United States, and it is our charge to preserve and make available these historical records. As a result, some of the materials presented here may reflect outdated, biased, offensive, and possibly violent views and opinions. In addition, some of the materials may relate to violent or graphic events and are preserved for their historical significance.

      The National Archives is committed to working with staff, communities, and peer institutions to assess and update descriptions that are harmful and to establish standards and policies to prevent future harmful language in staff-generated descriptions.
      Frequently Asked Questions
      What harmful or difficult content may be found in the National Archives Catalog and our web pages?

      Some items may:

      reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes;
      be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more;
      include graphic content of historical events such as violent death, medical procedures, crime, wars/terrorist acts, natural disasters and more;
      demonstrate bias and exclusion in institutional collecting and digitization policies.

      Why does the National Archives make potentially harmful content available?

      NARA’s mission is to preserve and provide access to the permanent records of the federal government. NARA, working in conjunction with diverse communities, will seek to balance the preservation of this history with sensitivity to how these materials are presented to and perceived by users.

      How is this material described, and why are some of the terms used in the descriptions harmful?

      Archivists choose what language to use when describing materials. Some of these descriptions were written many years ago, using language that was accepted at the time.
      Archivists often re-use language provided by creators or former owners of the material. This can provide important context, but it can also reflect biases and prejudices.
      Archivists often use a standardized set of terms, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, to describe materials. Some of these terms are outdated, offensive, or insensitive.
      In the past, the National Archives has not had standards or policies to help archivists avoid harmful language.

      How are archivists working to address this problem and help users better understand such content?

      Examples include:

      informing users about the presence and origin of harmful content;
      revising descriptions and standardized sets of descriptive terms, supplementing description with more respectful terms, or creating new standardized terms to describe materials;
      researching the problem, listening to users, experimenting with solutions, and sharing our findings with each other;
      evaluating existing processes for exclusionary practices or institutional bias that prioritize one culture and/or group over another;
      making an institutional commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

      – National Archives

  7. The Atlantic is notoriously biased. They lied about Trump insulting the military. There was no support for that either.

    I read Fox News (leans right) and The Hill (leans liberal). Between the two of them, I can get a pretty good idea of the big picture. They do two very important things: they check their facts and they sometimes tell their subscribers what they don’t want to hear. That’s journalism, my friends.

    I also leaven my news with Professor Turley on legal issues. His blog is always interesting and topical. I go to Real Clear Politics for editorial opinions (yes, sometimes I read the liberal ones). I also check Rasmussen every day because he’s the only pollster who seems to be consistently accurate. I check Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog first thing each month for ACTUAL global satellite temperatures. I don’t need some alarmist lying to me about that. I also check the latest covid-19 numbers in various states and countries every day. Don’t lie to me about that either.

    Yes, I am a news junkie. Have been for over 50 years.

    Finally, I never forget who’s lied to me: NYT, LA Times, WaPO, CNN, MSNBC, and THE ATLANTIC. This is not a complete list–just the usual suspects. I don’t subscribe to them at all, because their job is to filter out the lies, not endorse them. I don’t have time to do their job and neither do the silly people who believe anything CNN and MSNBC say.

    1. “The Atlantic is notoriously biased. They lied about…”

      Yet those on the left foolishly believe they are getting straight news from the Atlantic, and disparage anyone who gets their news from anything that is not biased to the left.

      Most of the bloggers on this blog that are on the right post things that are neutral plus their own opinion. Far better minds on the right than on the left.

  8. Which has been more dangerous to our democracy: A January 6 protest where an unarmed woman was shot to death or a cabal working for 4 years to overthrow a legitimate election?

    1. Great point. Needs to be repeated over and over again.

      “Which has been more dangerous to our democracy: A January 6 protest where an unarmed woman was shot to death or a cabal working for 4 years to overthrow a legitimate election?”

  9. This episode illustrates the basic laziness of prosecutors.

    Why pursue the fundamental crime when they can get people for lying?

    Martha Stewart, Michael Flynn. If they are criminals, then nail them for their crimes, not for lying to people who routinely lie to us.

    Cop out for prosecutors so they don’t have to work for a conviction.

    When will people learn not to speak to the FBI?

    Nobody talks himself out of trouble. However the reverse is frequently true.

    1. Material lies to the FBI **is** a crime, just like material lies while under oath is a crime.

  10. What has Durham been doing all these years? Justice delayed is justice denied, and he knows it. This way he can snatch some low hanging fruit and appear to have his integrity in tact.

    1. “Justice delayed is justice denied”

      This is a great statement at this juncture. Dead Americans in Afghanistan because justice was denied. Wokeism was a part of those deaths as well as BLM rioting, looting, burning and killing. Justice delayed. All the lying, stealing and hateful things done from the left are justice delayed, justice denied.

  11. Advocacy journalism is becoming the norm. That’s regrettable. The situation discussed in this column goes beyond advocacy journalism to outright fraud intended to swing an election. If you purchase shares of a publicly traded company, you have the protections afforded by the SEC’s anti-fraud rules. The participation of journalists, law firms, social media companies and political operatives in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections takes toxicity levels to an all time high.

    1. Yet we pay for NPR for example and all America gets in return is partisan advocacy “journalism” by the gob. They openly frothingly drool to do their leftist masters propaganda. And yet we have no protections from their boot licking partisan cancer.

      1. Tell you what: I’ll pay your share of what NPR gets, and you can pay my half my share of what the DOD gets.

        1. You are aware that a stated obligation of the federal government is to “provide for the common defense”, not “subsidize partisan propaganda”, aren’t you?

          In fact it is so important it is in the FIRST sentence of the Preamble to the Constitution.
          Yesterday was Constitution Day. If may be a good time for you to read it.

          1. Yes, I’m quite aware, and I’ve already read the Constitution and quoted from it more than once yesterday.

            Surely you’re aware that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution, and that “promote the general welfare” is another clause in the Preamble’s text.

            If you, personally, believe that 20 years of war in Afghanistan made us safer, then you and I have very different opinions about that. People also often disagree about whether specific congressional funding does promote the general welfare. No surprise to anyone who is paying attention.

            1. It is no small feat to tie the Preamble to Afghanistan but here you are doing just that.
              How about an encore with Taliban and Jamestown Settlers? Surely you wont hesitate


                1. You think you can bake cookies without flour? Seriously?
                  What did Hillary tell you was her recipe?

            2. Nobody argued that war in Afghanistan is making us or had made us safer. The shiny object of deflection may work with your simple minded peers but not here.

              Your straw man argument is more like fratricide than logic. It seems that much like the straw filled Scarecrow, you too lack a brain.

              And YES the preamble is an integral part of the Constitution. Since you claim to have read it, please have your mommy explain it to you.

              1. “Nobody argued that war in Afghanistan is making us or had made us safer.”

                A number of people argued that it would make us safer. That’s why it was started. It cost a huge amount, in lives and money, and I only asked phergus to pay **half** of my share for defense.

                “YES the preamble is an integral part of the Constitution”

                It states the purpose for the Constitution and who is adopting it. But the Preamble is not part of Constitutional law. And once again I’ll point out that “promote the general welfare” is part of the very same sentence in the Preamble, and if Congress believes that providing some funding for NPR is part of that, the text of the Constitution itself allows them to allocate those funds via the Spending Clause of Article 1.

                Have your own mommy explain it if you need help with that.

                1. “promote the general welfare” is part of the very same sentence in the Preamble,

                  You latch on to a meaningless phase and refuse to think

                  There is constitutional language concerning the recruitment and funding of the army and navy. The very need to create a “federal” government was predicated, part, to field and fund an army and navy.
                  No sentient being denies the military is provided for in the Constitution

                  1. “You latch on to a meaningless phase”

                    It isn’t meaningless. Why do you have difficulty understanding the meaning?

                    “You … refuse to think”

                    I don’t. I’m even better at it than you are, as I showed yesterday by quoting to you parts of the Constitution that enable Congress to pass certain kinds of voting legislation.

                    “There is constitutional language concerning the recruitment and funding of the army and navy. ”

                    And there’s also constitutional language about the general welfare. In fact, the Spending Clause addresses BOTH in the very same sentence: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; …”

                    “No sentient being denies the military is provided for in the Constitution”

                    I never suggested otherwise. I simply offered to pay phergus’s share of the NPR funding if he covered just half my share of the defense spending.

                    1. NPR is NOT an enumerated power of the Federal Govt. Defense is.
                      “common welfare” entails the enumerated constitutional powers. Not what ever congress is willing to fund.

                    2. Taxing and spending for the general welfare is an enumerated power, whether you can admit it or not. I just quoted the relevant section to you. The Constitution leaves it to Congress to determine what to include.

                    3. “Constitution leaves it to Congress to determine what to include.”

                      Wrong, the Constitution limits all government powers including the ability of Congress to spend.

          2. This is the wrong time to complain to those who per-sue absolute power a viable destructive force launched in EVERY QUARTER. This kind of power is well known historically as “barbarism” and a severe decline of the aim of this country.

        2. It looks like anonymous wants to disregard the Constitution and not defend American interests. Do you hate America that much?

          1. “It looks like anonymous wants to disregard the Constitution and not defend American interests.”

            How so?

                1. I read what I wrote and it is fine. The problem is with what you write. It is Stupid because you draw your conclusions and then put the facts together.

    2. Advocacy journalism has been the norm for a long time. Manufactured journalism is becoming the norm.

    3. There must be an understanding of “duality.” Even in a dysfunctional system sides must be drawn up in their quest for “absolute power.” so give it to them as its destructive forces are at work. Absolute Power gives way to absolute control brings destructiveness. DO YOU SEE IT YET?

  12. We all know the media are Democrat Operatives with by-lines. We know this. Democrats tell us this.
    We know from the DNC emails there are half a dozen media propagandists that will put their by-line on written articles submitted by Democrats. Those propagandist are named in the emails.

    We know the FBI has an entire procedure to “leak” stories to the press.

    How did Comey’s letter to self, go public? He gave them to a cutout with directions on who in the media to give the documents to.

    A Micheal Issakoff, story was named as a source in a FISA warrant application. The substance of the “news” article? Leaks from the FBI. Again, the FBI has written protocol on the proper way to feed information to the media.
    So. The FBI wants to spy on US citizens. They have no evidence. They make something up…leak it to one of their propagandist…story get published….published story is used as evidence to get a secret warrant to spy on innocent citizens. It gets better. FISA judges answer to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court….Roberts has done nothing about this unconstitutional abuse of power….He is way too busy crafting the perception of the court being non partisan.

    The media knows they are being lied to. They are part of lie.

  13. This is how the sausage is made by the demoratzi media machine. The politics of personal destruction. A hack “journalista” being used as a conduit for a propaganda hit piece. The flip side of this coin is the absolute sycophancy of the media in licking the boots of the leftist demoratzi party and their chosen puppets like lord senile darth biden of ‘chyna’.

  14. Yes, Alfa. Don’t want to get it wrong like Russian “expert” Steele.

    The obvious legal standard here is Michael Flynn, no? If the evidence was sufficient enough for him to cop a plea, why not Sussman?

    1. Because Sussman doesn’t want to plead guilty. And if you think the evidence for Sussman is similar to the evidence for Flynn, you clearly never looked at the evidence for Sussman (and maybe not against Flynn either, some of which has never been made public).

      1. Why would sussman ever think of pleading guilty. Afterall he has the protection of the leftist media and likely a nod from the dark corner which vomited out the garbage they had him prop up. And He was not hounded incessantly by a frothing leftist media , a politicized FB(lie) that went so far as to threaten a business partner and his son. So whatever makes you think Flynn wanted to cop a plea is ludicrous. Try getting bankrupted , try have the media all out for your neck , then have the FB(lie) threaten to conjur up charges on your children ….. unless you fall on a sword of their making ?.

      2. Flynn was a set up. We have to learn more about Sussman. You make your decisions outside of the rule of law. That is not known as American justice. At least it wasn’t ’known that way before the Democrats destroyed the rule of law.

    2. The Flynn case to any criminal defense lawyer (exception was common place in courtrooms decades before Flynn. Quote: They are after your ass, intend to pin charges on you, you have no rights here. Why then is the criminal process being savaged? There is no Rule of Law but a 2 tier system designed to imprison those we do not like. This is racism at its purest form incarcerate those you do not like.

    3. Anonymous,

      Comparing what got General Michael Flynn charged, to Michael Sussman, Clinton’s attorney who was just indicted by Durham, shows that you have not actually understood the nuances of these matters. Gen. Flynn had some bad advice when he first took a plea. He also had a Judge, who seemed as partisan as the others involved in this attempted coup, and actual attempt to steal an election. Flynn was just someone who was caught up in the game of thrones.

      1. According to the 302, Flynn lied to the FBI about a material issue, an issue that Pence and Trump also said Flynn lied to Pence about. No “nuance” needed.

            1. I provide the facts as they come in. I don’t create conclusions and pick out the facts I like. That is what you do all the time.

        1. According to the 302…man what a class act of brazen stupidity. You do know that the original 302 has never materialized and that the 302 they ‘used’ was created long after the date…created to be favorable to the FB(lie). So when you acknowledge that the original 302 has gone awol and has never been found you rely on a doctored political 302…the fool is shown to be you.

          1. “the original 302 has never materialized”

            That’s false. It was even included as an exhibit in the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. You didn’t read it?

            1. That is a lie. The original one has never been released. The 302 you call the original was a rewrite.

              Once again you respond with character assassination trying to tell everyone phergus didn’t read it instead of focusing in on the lie you produced. That is Stupid and a hallmark of a deceptive liar.

              1. It’s not a lie. The DOJs motion to dismiss includes both the original and the final versions of the 302. You’re the one who is lying here — as always, your criticisms of others are simply projection of your own faults.

                1. Maybe you know something that I missed. I thought the original 302 was rewritten. Where can I find the original 302?

                    1. For some reason, perhaps your history of lies and deception, without you providing actual proof of the original 302 being published, I don’t believe you. I could be wrong, but I remember that many were saying we would never see the complete original 302.

                      You could be right (not important), but you will have to show it to me. Over and over again during the Flynn proceedings a bunch of people lied about the original 302. Likely you were one of them. If not I am sorry, but your credibility is near zero.

                      Prove your case or not. I no longer look up assumptions you make. The vast majority were wrong or deceptive. My guess is that the complete unabridged original 302 is not available for public consumption. If I am wrong you will produce the original 302 unabridged and it site on the net.

                      I, like many others don’t permit you to waste our time any longer.

                    2. I don’t care whether you believe me, and you have a lot of gall to insult me multiple times while insisting that I provide you a link to the DOJs motion to dismiss with exhibits, which is easily found online.

                    3. Why should anyone believe you. A couple of people have already stated that what you are saying is a lie.

                      You have zero credibility proven over and over, so I don’t waste my time chasing your deceptions or lies. You are a waste of time.

                    4. Anon–“I don’t care whether you believe me, and you have a lot of gall to insult me multiple times while insisting that I provide you a link to the DOJs motion to dismiss with exhibits, which is easily found online.”

                      Your claim, your burden of proof.

                      Isn’t that what you always tell others here?

                    5. “Your claim, your burden of proof. Isn’t that what you always tell others here?”

                      Yes, Young, that is what I say. And I mean it. Had Allan / S. Meyer / SM / Anonymous simply said that to me, I would have provided the links. But instead, because he is unable to control his desire to denigrate, he posted lots of insults.

                      Since you did not insult me and simply asked me to meet my burden of proof, here you go:
                      The letter from Judge Sullivan with the original and the final version:
                      The DOJs motion to dismiss, with a less-redacted version of the original appended as Exhibit 6:

                      Of course, you and I both know that you often do not take your own burden of proof seriously. So I will now make this clear: don’t assume that I will always oblige you. It’s a two-way street, and since you often refuse, I may well refuse in return.

                    6. Anonymous the Stupid,

                      You bumbled. Too little too late. See all the other remarks on this subject.

                    7. Anon– I don’t have a burden of proof. Neither do you. This isn’t a courtroom. But I don’t mind hand your own back to you.

                    8. “There are originals and then there are ‘originals'”

                      Young, that is the answer. I’m not sure that is the original 302. There has been too much lying by the FBI to accept anything as the truth. I understood it was a rewrite, and this claims it wasn’t a rewrite. No matter for we will not know the truth about a lot of things. However, I note it is an abridged document. Who is the document trying to protect? I called for a non-abridged document, but note how anonymous was deceitful because he could have said what he believed was original, was abridged. It is his type of dishonest mindset that occupies the higher levels of the FBI.

                      We need the FBI torn down and rebuilt in a non-political, non-deep state manner. Too many secrets, yet when something important comes up, our intelligence seems to be very lacking.

                    9. “I don’t have a burden of proof. Neither do you.”

                      Both of us do, whether you agree to it or not.

                      “This isn’t a courtroom.”

                      Your problem, Young, seems to be that you don’t understand the difference between a legal burden of proof and the general burden of proof in argumentation. Both exist, whether you bring yourself to admit it or not, whether you’re interested in understanding that or not. If you’d like to learn more (which I doubt), here’s one source:

                      You should be able to discern whether someone means “burden of proof” in the legal sense or the everyday argument sense. I think you can, but apparently you do not want to.

                    10. Young, as you can see for yourself, Thomas J. Baker’s claim that “Worse still, the FD-302 that was eventually provided to the court wasn’t that of the agents’ interview of Mr. Flynn. It was instead a FD-302 of an interview of Mr. Strzok, conducted months later, about his recollections of the original interview” is wildly false.

                      The 302 from Strzok’s interview is a totally different document, and it is also appended as an exhibit in the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.

                      Was Baker ignorant and inept in making such a false claim, or was he instead lying?

                    11. Anon– Your linked article on burden of proof is another diversion in this context. It addresses formal arguments which comments here usually are not. Much here is more in the form of an informed conversation, except with you. You must be a delight at parties.

                      However, my original comment to you was because so often when people here ask you for information you often respond with a ‘go look it up for yourself’ answer while demanding strict evidence from others. In other words you set rules for others that you show little inclination to follow yourself.

                      Here is an example of your response from below: “I don’t care whether you believe me, and you have a lot of gall to insult me multiple times while insisting that I provide you a link to the DOJs motion to dismiss with exhibits, which is easily found online.”

                      As for your article, it seems a bit overdone, perhaps something written to prove to have published something. With a quick scan I think it has res ipsa loquitur a bit wrong. The article claims that it is invoked when no evidence exists to prove a point. But ‘The Thing Itself Speaks’ makes it clear that the tort itself, by its very existence, is evidence.

                      But why would you even bother to dredge up a response based on that article? Do you have OCD or something? It really does seem psychologically over the top, a little like counting angels on the head of a pin and disagreeing with others on the true number. An article on burden of proof? Really?

                    12. “my original comment to you was because so often when people here ask you for information you often respond with a ‘go look it up for yourself’ answer while demanding strict evidence from others”

                      You STILL do not understand burden of proof. I am not responsible for information that **I** didn’t make a claim about, simply because **you** want it. So when someone asks me for information that I didn’t make a claim about, I tell them to look it up for themselves. When I ask someone for evidence, it’s after I quoted what the person said, and I am only asking them for evidence of their own claim.

                      “Here is an example of your response from below: ‘I don’t care whether you believe me, and you have a lot of gall to insult me multiple times while insisting that I provide you a link to the DOJs motion to dismiss with exhibits, which is easily found online.’”

                      Yep. Allan is not acting in good faith, and I’m not going to pretend that he’s acting in good faith. He goes around denigrating most of the people he disagrees with and refusing to meet his own burden of proof. This is a two-way street. If you make demands that you yourself are unwilling to meet, I may well refuse. But I don’t refuse requests from people engaged in a sincere discussion, like Prairie Rose.

                    13. “Allan is not acting in good faith”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, I act in good faith, but things can become unclear when dealing with a deceitful liar. You have lied so many times that even you have difficulty knowing when you are telling the truth. I am not your problem. You are your problem because series of lies continuously spewed lead to conflicting statements. That is why you rely on an anonymous icon and pretend friends. In that way, you can deny your conflicts, foolishness and lies.

                      At one time or another, you have lied to almost every blogger you disagree with. Your record tells us who and what you are.

                2. The FBI stated the original 302 had gone missing. I never saw a correction on that.
                  The Conservative Tree House has all the govt documents on the Flynn frame up job. No original 302. Just the 2cnd or 3 iteration. We know from text messages that FBI brass were busy “editing” the 302 before its “official” release to the permanent file. The “edits” were done by persons not present at the interview.

                  1. “The FBI stated the original 302 had gone missing.”

                    A claim for which you provide no evidence. Quote them. Flynn’s attorney didn’t quote the FBI saying this, do you think you can produce a quote from the FBI when Sidney Powell couldn’t?

                    “The Conservative Tree House has all the govt documents…”

                    Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. I’ll turn to a more reliable source, the Court Docket for the case:

                    As I already pointed out in my 9:43am comment, those Court documents include the agents’ handwritten notes from the interview itself. Just what do believe is in the notes but not in the 302, or vice versa?

                    “The “edits” were done by persons not present at the interview.”

                    Another claim for which you provide no evidence.

              2. That was my recollection as well, that the original 302 was lost and a reconstituted 302 substituted for the original. I don’t think the true original was ever found but I am not sure whether anyone thought to look in Comey’s drawer or Comey’s drawers.or socks.

                Remember, by the way, long ago when documents relating to the Clintons were stolen from the National Archives by a Clinton operative, Sandy Berger, who hid them in his socks? He received very light punishment. Don’t recall his name just now. Clinton methods though, it seems.

                1. Thank you Young, Anonymous likes to waste people’s time and then blames it on other anonymous bloggers, better known as his pretend friends. I’m tired of his deceit and doubt he will produce the original unabridged 302. If he does, I want to read it.

                2. We already know that your recollections aren’t particularly trustworthy. Like when you claimed “I think [thalidomide was] approved for general use. The FDA never proscribed it for pregnant women. They failed in their approval process.” That was false.

                  “the original 302 was lost”

                  It wasn’t.

                  But I do need to correct one thing that I did misremember: The DOJs motion to dismiss only includes the original 302. The document that had both the original and final version of the 302 was a document sent by the Special Counsel’s office to Judge Sullivan in 2018. As their cover letter noted, “Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order dated today, the government hereby files two redacted versions of the FD-302 report summarizing the FBI’s interview of the defendant on January 24, 2017. See Attachment. The content of both versions of the report is identical, except that the first version, which was digitally signed and certified in February 2017, inadvertently contained a header labeled “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL.” Once that error was recognized, the header was removed and a corrected version, omitting only the header, was re-signed and re-certified in May 2017.”

                  “I don’t think the true original was ever found”

                  It was never lost.

                  1. Your words are like those of a snake, not to be trusted. There is deceit in most everything you say. We don’t know for sure what Sullivan received.

                    I await for you to produce the original unabridged 302 and a link to prove its existence. I don’t expect you to provide it because your abilities lie in the realm of lying and deception.

                  2. Anon to Me quoting me “The FDA never proscribed it for pregnant women. They failed in their approval process.” That was false.’


                    “Thalidomide was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women. ”

                    Anon, is it truly ‘False’ when I said the FDA did not proscribe if for pregnant women?

                    Oh, perhaps after hundreds of babies were deformed, but we both know I was speaking of before that discovery.

                    You really are not honest.

                    1. Yes, Young, it’s truly false when you said “I think [thalidomide was] approved for general use. The FDA never proscribed it for pregnant women. They failed in their approval process.”

                      It was NEVER approved by the FDA in the 1950s or 1960s, despite the company applying for approval then, and when it was finally approved in the 1970s, it was proscribed for pregnant women.

                      You quote an article abstract that says “Thalidomide was a widely used drug in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women,” but you apparently were too lazy to read the article itself, which makes clear that they were commenting on its use globally: “Within a few years of the widespread use of thalidomide in Europe, Australia, and Japan, approximately 10,000 children were born with phocomelia, leading to the ban of thalidomide in most countries in 1961. … The thalidomide tragedy was averted in the United States because of the hold on its approval by Dr Frances Kelsey of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

                      Want to cite another article you’re too lazy to read and only underscores my point?

                    2. Anon- You are right. I read the abstract rather than the entire article. I recalled that it was used in the US although as an experimental drug and there were American babies born with defects because of it. As the problems became more apparent the FDA seems to have fumbled part of the investigation.

                      “The F.D.A. began to jettison cases that did not help it build a case against Richardson-Merrell, even when there was evidence that thalidomide had harmed a child. In some instances, the investigators dropped inquiries when the mother’s doctor was not on the company’s list of participating physicians,***In the report above, the F.D.A. concluded that the child had been harmed by thalidomide prescribed by a doctor who had participated in Richardson-Merrell’s clinical trial. But because the drug had been prescribed to the woman’s father — who gave it to his daughter — the agency dropped the case.

                      Today, many Americans who believe their defects were caused by thalidomide have no definitive proof.”


                      It was bad but it could have been worse if the FDA had given its entire blessing to the drug.

                      But my larger point was that the FDA approval process is not an assurance that there will not be future problems. Instead of thalidomide I should have chosen Chantix.

                      FDA approval, particularly with something as novel as the ‘vaccine’ is not to be relied on.

                    3. “But my larger point was that the FDA approval process is not an assurance that there will not be future problems.”

                      Young, I remember Oraflex, an anti-arthritic medication that hit the headline in my local newspaper. People called it a wonder cure when it was just another drug for arthritis. Earlier, a drug used for heart disease was delayed for a couple of years after successful use in Europe. Oraflex killed a good number of people and caused kidney failure. The other drug saved lives.

                      Oraflex was quickly removed from the marketplace. The cardiac drug (that could have saved more lives) was delayed. Why should a non-life-saving drug with competitors be given approval and a life-saving drug be withheld?

                      I had discussed this with certain folk and suggested that a new category be created so that drugs affecting mortality and morbidity be more quickly accepted when there were NO similar drugs. I suggested it be color-coded as not FDA approved but used in more severe cases where no equal alternatives existed.

                    4. “my larger point was that the FDA approval process is not an assurance that there will not be future problems.”

                      No one ever claimed otherwise, and you could have made that point without making a false claim about Thalidomide and then scurrying to support your false claim with a quote from and link to an abstract for an article you hadn’t read, pretending the quote was about the US when it was about international use.

                  3. It does appear that the 302 was lost:


                    “Although the government has insisted that the FBI’s after-the-fact edits to the 302 report were “largely grammatical and stylistic,” Flynn’s lawyer argued that they were in fact highly substantive and improper alterations that inaccurately made it appear that Flynn had issued blanket denials to agents’ questions.”

                    1. Isn’t it amazing how documents can be lost only to suddenly reappear in a form different from the original condition suggested when the issue was crucial? Doesn’t that sound a bit untrustworthy?

                    2. Oh, well, if Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell says so, it must be true. The same Sidney Powell who was recently sanctioned by a judge for deceiving the court. She couldn’t possibly be deceiving Fox News too. And if Fox describes it as “after the fact edits,” rather than the normal editing process as handwritten notes are turned into a 302 with complete sentences, that must be so too.

                      “It does appear that the 302 was lost”

                      No, it does not appear that way to anyone paying attention to all of the relevant evidence. Here’s what the phrase “largely grammatical and stylistic” is from (p. 4, but pay attention to all of pp. 4-8, plus the exhibits, including the agents’ handwritten notes from the interview itself):

                      “The Reply alleges that the government has suppressed the “original 302” of the January 24 interview, and fabricated certain notes and reports of the January 24 interview. Reply at 23-24. The arguments appear premised on three contentions: that “material” changes were made to the interview report after February 10, 2017; that the government hid the fact that the defendant had a sure demeanor; and that former Deputy Assistant Director (“DAD”) Peter Strzok’s handwritten notes were not taken contemporaneously during the interview. See Reply at 10-11, 23-27. Each contention is divorced from the facts.
                      “Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, there were no material changes made after February 10, 2017, to the draft of the January 24 interview report. See Reply at 26. On February 10, 2017, DAD Strzok highlighted two—and only two—sentences where he did not recall a statement that the other interviewing agent included in the draft of the report. See Exhibit 3 at 2, 4. Neither of those sentences pertain to the defendant’s false statements. A careful review of the draft of the interview report dated February 10, 2017, details each of the defendant’s material false statements—which track the agents’ handwritten notes. … [elaboration on several of the false statements] The final interview report, just like the agent’s handwritten notes, reflect all of the above material false statements. See Notice (Official Record of January 24 Interview Report), United States v. Flynn, No. 17-cr-232 (D.D.C. June 6, 2019) (Doc. 85). The edits to the interview report between February 10 and February 15, largely grammatical and stylistic, did not alter the above-described false statements.
                      The Reply nonetheless suggests that there is a suppressed “original 302” that would exonerate the defendant. See Reply at 27-30. There is no evidence to support the defendant’s claim. First, the government has provided the defendant with every draft of the January 24 interview report in its possession. Second, the most “original” interview documents are the handwritten notes themselves, which the government provided to the defendant and detail the defendant’s multiple false statements. Third, even if an earlier draft of the interview report once existed, there is no reason to believe it would materially differ from the interviewing agents’ handwritten notes or the other drafts—all of which state that the defendant made the specific false statements to which the defendant admitted guilt. Fourth, the interviewing agents’ statements to FBI and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) officials immediately following the interview on January 24, 2017, confirm that the defendant made multiple false statements—that is why DOJ officials immediately contacted the White House after the interview (the National Security Advisor had just lied to the FBI about his communications with Russia). And, fifth, the defendant’s false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017, were the same false statements that he made just days earlier to Vice President Michael Pence, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and The Washington Post.
                      “… Both interviewing agents repeatedly attested to the accuracy of the final interview report, which again confirm the defendant’s false statements. …”

                    3. Poor rebut. Repetitious and doesn’t build up prior arguments that were overblown and deceptive.

            2. Your anonymous deceit is again noted. The original 302 “IS LONG VANISHED”. yOU KNOW THIS YET YOU PURPOSELY PERPETUATE A LIE THAT FITS YOUR NARRATIVE.
              The original 302 was quoted from in parts as it showed the agents did not believe Flynn lied or was untruthful, and some other details. All of which was subsequently “lost”…yeah right. The scum FB(lie) agent whom was sleeping with the legal ho at the FB(lie) made sure the 302 was rewritten , NOT BACK DATED EITHER , and the original was ooopsy lost. Lost intentionally as it would have perjured these goobermint actors on what they later did .

        2. The FBI likes 302 forms filled in by the agent. That way what you ‘officially’ say is not necessarily what you actually said and you are vulnerable to charges of lying even when you didn’t lie. Responsible law enforcement agencies record interviews [there is actually equipment for that] so what you say is beyond doubt. With a 302 you can say ‘looks like a nice day’ and the ‘record’ can be that you were plotting a kidnapping. It is probably a good idea never to say anything to them. As for “See Something, Say Something’ don’t bother with the feebs. Remember Richard Jewell and that poor guy who reported Hunter’s laptop.

          1. Answer me this since you’re attorney and I am not. Why are the Clintons getting off yet again? Where are the legal repercussions for what Clinton did? I dont get it.

            I just read the indictment and it mentions Clinton throughout beginning on page 2

            In fact, and as alleged in further detail below, this statement was intentionally false and misleading because, in assembling and conveyingthese allegations, SUSSMANN acted on behalf of specific clients, namely, (i) a U.S. technology industry executive (“Tech Executive-I”) at a U.S. Internet company (“Internet Company-I”), and (ii) the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign (the “Clinton Campaign”).


            1. “Why are the Clintons getting off yet again?”

              According to you, what crime did they commit? Be specific.

                  1. OK, so you aren’t that Stupid and know the Clintons committed crimes, but want Estovir to mention some of the many that he is thinking about. That is fair, but you don’t acknowledge any of the crimes. That is Stupid.

            2. Estovir– “Why are the Clintons getting off yet again?”

              I think the answer is in politics rather than law, same reason Castro and Stalin were never charged.

              Hillary on the face of it should have been in trouble for conducting classified government business over a secret, insecure email account. She should have been in trouble for erasing thousands of emails on a matter under investigation. Not long ago someone was charged with obstruction for deleting messages on his phone before he knew he was being looked at, if I remember correctly. He never was charged with an actual offense. The feds are relying heavily on process crimes to go after political targets, ‘crimes’ like lying when only a 302 prepared by an agent is evidence of lying. But the Clintons have not been political targets and seem to have skated on a lot that would put us in a supermax prison or, worse, an Epstein type prison where we committed suicide after the cameras were broken and the guards were sleeping.

              1. Your comparison with Castro and Stalin are unfortunate but confirm my biggest fears about America. Our judicial system exists in name only. I could not read the Durham indictment to completion because it sickened me.

                Thanks for the reply though

              2. “Hillary on the face of it should have been in trouble for conducting classified government business over a secret, insecure email account. ”

                Should Trump have been in trouble for conducting classified government business over an insecure phone?

                “The feds are relying heavily on process crimes to go after political targets, ‘crimes’ like lying when only a 302 prepared by an agent is evidence of lying”

                Do you think that’s what Durham is doing, except in this case he doesn’t even have a 302?

                “the Clintons have not been political targets and seem to have skated on a lot that would put us in a supermax prison or, worse, an Epstein type prison”

                Unfortunately, a lot of powerful people skate on crimes. Trump too. The FBI agent who falsified the report about Larry Nassar hasn’t even been charged.

  15. It’ Alfa, not Alpha.

    As for “The next question is who is the “Tech executive”?,” your first question should have been something like: what is the quality of the evidence against Sussman? should he have been indicted?

    From what I’ve read, the answer is a resounding “no, Durham is not going to be able to convince a jury that Sussman did anything illegal.”

    1. what is the quality of the evidence against Sussman?

      Question from the FBI. “are working for the Clinton Campaign or the DNC? Answer: No.
      Billing sheets show Sussman billing Clinton and the DNC for work.

      1. “Question from the FBI. “are working for the Clinton Campaign or the DNC? Answer: No.”

        I don’t think you’ve read the indictment. Because the indictment doesn’t specify the question he was asked or the wording of his answer. It doesn’t quote an FBI 302.

        Moreover, lying to the FBI is only a crime it it’s material to an investigation, and you’re going to have a hard time proving that that omitting that particular piece of info would be material, given that Baker’s contemporaneous notes — which the indictment does rely on — specifically state that Sussman “Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.”

        1. Correction: that should be the Asst. Director’s contemporaneous notes, not Baker’s notes.

        2. Again this Turkey is accusing others of not reading the documents. However, this turkey links to all sorts of garbage and seldom gets the law right.

    2. Sussman admitted he lied to the FBI when under oath during a congressional committee hearing. His own billing records show hew was lying

      1. “Sussman admitted he lied to the FBI when under oath during a congressional committee hearing.”

        No, he didn’t.

        “His own billing records show hew was lying”

        I doubt that you’ve even read the indictment, in which case you don’t know how little evidence there is that he lied, much less that it was a material lie.

        1. Character assassination instead of facts. That is how this turkey operates and argues. HE should be put in a cage.

          1. It’s a fact that Sussman did NOT “admit[] he lied to the FBI when under oath during a congressional committee hearing.”

            We know this by reading the transcript of Sussman’s congressional testimony and failing to find any statement from Sussman in which “Sussman admitted he lied to the FBI.” If you believe otherwise, just quote the statement from Sussman in which you think “Sussman admitted he lied to the FBI.”

            And if you haven’t read the indictment, I suggest you read that too.

            1. “And if you haven’t read the indictment, I suggest you read that too.”

              Character assassination from one who links to garbage and most of the times either doesn’t read the indictments or doesn’t understand them. It is Stupid to try and prove you case with character assassination. You have no character to be assassinated so you are fair game.

    3. Durham is not going to be able to convince a jury that Sussman did anything illegal.”

      Probably never see a jury. Plea bargain instead.

      1. Doubtful, unless Durham has significant evidence that he hasn’t included in the indictment. The evidence in the indictment is incredibly weak, and Sussman has already pleaded not guilty.

        1. Since you draw your conclusions, and then pick out the data, your conclusions are not credible.

            1. No, your faults are quite obvious. I use a real name when I am dealing with a credible individual. With you an anonymous name suffices. I want to save people time when I am dealing with you and your nonsense. I want others to know they can immediately delete what you and I say before reading. You are a waste of time.

              1. If you think anonymous commenters are waste of time, then why do you spend so much time posting responses to anonymous commenters?

                1. It is a waste of time for others, but based on my responses, not a waste of time for me.

                  When I want what I said to be included among real bloggers, I use my alias. When I want others to recognize that the response is mostly to another that makes little sense, I use my initials. When I comment to a really Stupid person I use anonymous so people can quickly press the delete button.

                  Sometimes I forget to put a name in when intended, but I think it is pretty clear when I am posting and when I am not.

            1. S. Meyer–“It is amazing what Anonymous doesn’t know.


              Yes it is and yet he manages ignorance with such pomposity.

        2. “The evidence in the indictment is incredibly weak,”

          Do you think they would try for a Motion for Conviction on the Pleadings?

          You can make a motion for a judgment on the Pleadings in a civil case but not in a criminal case. Not all of their case is usually spread out in an indictment.

          1. Do you care to actually discuss the evidence in the indictment and the problems with that evidence?

            Or, per your usual, do you just want to carp without digging in on the details?

            1. One ‘detail’ is that an indictment doesn’t present all of the evidence. Nothing to discuss in terms of likely outcome.

              1. I never claimed that the indictment presents all the evidence.

                I said that the evidence in the indictment is incredibly weak.

                You’re capable of understanding the difference.

                Once again: Do you care to actually discuss the evidence in the indictment and the problems with that evidence?

                1. You lack experience of similar situations in some state courts. A felony charge is filed, the defendant is arrested, and often a preliminary hearing is scheduled.

                  The preliminary hearing is often before a lower court to demonstrate that the state has enough of a case to move forward with felony charges. The case almost inevitably moves forward to a court of general jurisdiction for trial on the felony charges.

                  In the preliminary hearing the state will present more evidence than appears in the charging documents, ostensibly to validate the case for the felony trial, but in reality to give the defendant and his attorney an opportunity to get enough of a taste of the case the state has to want to plea bargain. They seldom disclose all. They like surprises.

                  More evidence appears with the Brady disclosures. Again, contrary to law, they sometimes hold back evidence they should disclose.

                  There are stages through which evidence is revealed and you are looking only at the initial stage. I wouldn’t venture to make a prediction about the ultimate outcome based only on the indictment. The feds thought they looked pretty good in the charging documents with the Hutaree Militia and the Whitmer ‘Kidnapping’ Case as well. They all but charged Richard Jewell and Steven Hatfield, and they leaked their ‘case’ to trip public opinion against them and, probably, to prejudice future juries.

                  Trust nothing they say or do.

              2. See what you think, Young.

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

                By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

                Here is where the prosecutor appears to be going: The Trump–Russia collusion narrative was essentially a fabrication of the Clinton campaign that was peddled to the FBI (among other government agencies) and to the media by agents of the Clinton campaign


                1. McCarthy claims that it “appears to be an eminently provable felony charge.” Based on the evidence in the indictment, he has little support for that. Do you want to discuss the details of the evidence presented so far for the charge?

                  McCarthy continues, “Sussmann allegedly told Baker that he was not working for any client when he brought Baker sensitive information”

                  That’s what the indictment alleges. But there are no notes from Baker in the indictment, only from the Assistant Director, who was not in the meeting between Baker and Sussman. Those notes say
                  “Michael Sussman[n] -Atty: [Law Firm-I] – said not doing this for any client
                  “• Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.”

                  Clearly one issue is what the pronoun “this” refer to. Also, even if they can show that Sussman made a false claim, they’d still need to show that it was materially false. They obviously knew at the time who some of his clients were.

                  Do you agree with McCarthy that it “appears to be an eminently provable felony charge”?

                2. Thanks, Estovir, that is a very interesting article. I almost got the sense that the plea deal fix is in and they are settling Sussman’s hash with this charge but a promise of a light sentence if he cooperates. That isn’t an unusual method of going after someone more important. Of course I don’t know.

                  We usually think in terms of criminal liability and then also civil liability but anyone with a professional license must also consider disciplinary action by his licensing entity, a state bar association and the state supreme court. I don’t know if it will happen given the powerful connections in play, but it sounds as if more than a handful of lawyers in Perkins, Coie could be disbarred for what the firm is perpetrating. As McCarthy says, Durham’s report should be interesting, but it would also be justice if more charges were filed against more prominent actors in this giant deception in the middle of a national election.

                  1. Again, I’m not an attorney so forgive my ignorance. It is clear that Hillary financed this coup against Trump, but I am not clear how bankrolling, like the mafia, the takedown of the US President is not a crime. I don’t know the laws like you do. I am strictly a medical guy. But it seems to me that Hillary, the DNC, the MSM, all hampered the duties of the US President, duly elected by the Electoral College. Why is that not a criminal offense? Heck, the January 6 pep rally that has turned DC into a armed state, was characterized into “impeding the duties of the US Congress”, by unarmed, morbidly obese yahoos.

                    In a prior century, she would have fallen under the guillotine fate of Benedict Arnold. General Mark Milley too.

                    “Mark Milley, US general who stood up to Trump, founders over Kabul strike
                    Civilian deaths in US drone strike deal blow to credibility of chairman of the joint chiefs of staff when he needs it most”

                    When the Guardian is counting a Biden appointee as foundering, you know you’re toast.

                  2. “Trump’s Tweets and the Creation of ‘Illusory Truth’”


                    “[Trump’s] favorite moniker by far is “Witch Hunt”—embellished, in recent weeks, to “Rigged Witch Hunt”—which Trump has used a whopping 84 times this year alone in reference to Mueller’s investigation.”

                    “When a statement is repeated, it starts to feel more familiar,” said Keith Payne, a psychology and neuroscience professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “That feeling of familiarity is easily interpreted as the feeling of truth.”

                    Durham investigation is a witch hunt,

                    W_I_T_C_H H_U_N_T!

                    There, I said it, 83 more times to go on this forum until it sinks in….

  16. Foer was used.

    But he was used like a $10 hooker; convenient but not respected.

    Doubt that he will ever pay a career price.

    But thinking people have our doubts about the media reinforced.

Comments are closed.