In Like Flynn: Clinton Lawyer Adopts a Familiar Defense Against Durham Charge

This week, a former Clinton campaign lawyer was in court with his counsel to fight the indictment by Special Counsel John Durham alleging a false statement to federal investigators. At points, however, Michael Sussmann sounded more like Michael Flynn in arguing that, even if he gave false information, it was trivial and did not warrant a criminal charge. The one missing element, however, was the prior host of liberal legal experts shouting down the defense as frivolous and heralding the prosecution.

I was critical of the charge against Flynn as well as the bizarre and abusive treatment that he received by the trial court. Yet, legal experts on CNN and other media outlets insisted that Flynn’s arguments were meritless. They insisted that, even though Flynn acknowledged that the FBI knew of his meeting with the Russians, he was still not forthcoming on everything that they discussed.

Despite my repeated disagreement with Flynn over his reckless comments, the concern is that 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(2) allows prosecutors to charge on any misleading or false statement made in often tense or unguarded conversations with a target.

Sussmann’s counsel is raising that same type of defense and insisting that, while he may have hidden the fact that he was working for Hillary Clinton in trying to start a federal investigation targeting Donald Trump, it was immaterial or trivial.

In the indictment, Sussmann is accused of “mak[ing] a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation” in conversations with the then General Counsel of the FBI James Baker. Durham argued that “The defendant provided the FBI General Counsel with purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and a Russia-based bank.”

That bank was Alfa Bank and Sussmann’s effort paralleled the work of his partner at the law firm Perkins Coie, Marc Elias, in pushing the Steele Dossier in a separate debunked collusion claim.

The Clinton Campaign’s Alfa Bank conspiracy was found to be baseless but the FBI did not know that it was being offered by someone being paid by the campaign to spread the claim. Had they known, Durham alleges the department might have been able to avoid the investigation costs and effort spent on the Alfa matter.

Sussmann is now pulling a full Flynn and arguing that, even if he lied, it was not “materially false” or materially impacted the investigation. It was instead “ancillary” to the “tip itself.”

One line stood out. Sussmann’s attorney Michael Bosworth insisted “This is an unprecedented false statement prosecution.” Yet, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought a series of relatively minor false statement claims against Trump officials that ultimately led to brief periods of incarceration.

Attorney Alex van der Zwaan and adviser George Papadopoulos were charged by Mueller with single counts under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Virtually all of the charges were for lying to investigators or entirely unrelated charges. Papadopoulos spent of all 14 days in jail. Van der Zwaan spent 30 days.

In some ways, Sussmann’s hearing could not have come on a worse day. As he was in court defending his hiding the effort of the Clinton campaign to push this false claim on Alfa Bank, the FEC was fining the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee for hiding its funding of the Steele Dossier. We previously discussed allegations that Marc Elias, the former general counsel for the Clinton Campaign and partner at the firm Perkins Coie, lied to conceal the campaign’s funding of the infamous Steele Dossier.

The timing could not be worse for Sussmann.

Yet his former partner Elias may be a source of hope for Sussmann. Elias has previously been sanctioned for his conduct in litigation and recently lost an effort to gerrymander the Maryland voting districts.  While the alleged Elias’ lies would ordinarily seem a professional liability for any attorney, they seem an actual professional attraction for Elias. Elias has been accused of making millions from gerrymandering and challenging election victories by Republicans (while condemning such actions by Republicans as “anti-Democratic”).

The motion to dismiss is now before U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper. The trial is set for for May 13.

 

 

186 thoughts on “In Like Flynn: Clinton Lawyer Adopts a Familiar Defense Against Durham Charge”

  1. Steele began writing his Dossier in June off 2016 and completed it in December of 2016. He knew that it was to late to effect the 2016 election but he knew it would be useful in the upcoming coup against the Trump Presidency. If he would have succeeded he would have been heralded in history alongside John Wilkes Booth.

      1. It’s a matter of definition. There was an organized attempt through the use of false claims against candidate Trump and then President Trump. The intention was to blame him for things that did not exist and were created by his enemies. The security agencies (and other agencies), including the FBI, aided in promoting lies while members of Congress assisted.

        It was an attempted coup though you prefer not to use such a word.

        1. It’s not a matter of definition. It’s a matter of how a definition is made. The methodology used is childish.

    1. The punishment, if proven, for their coup and undermining the US President should be a firing squad. Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah and South Carolina are now using firing squads for death row inmates.

      …..

      “Last week, the South Carolina Department of Corrections announced it had completed renovations to its death chamber, spending more than $53,000 to prepare it for a firing squad of three riflemen to shoot inmates through the heart.

      “The inmate will be given the opportunity to make a last statement,” the agency wrote in a statement about the renovations, which were pursuant to a new May 2021 law authorising firing squads, as the state has struggled to locate lethal injection drugs in recent years.

      “The inmate will be strapped into the chair,” the Department continued, “and a hood will be placed over his head. A small aim point will be placed over his heart by a member of the execution team. After the warden reads the execution order, the team will fire. After the shots, a doctor will examine the inmate.”

      – Yahoo News

      1. I’ve said before that I don suffer fools lightly. Meaning I’m A fool and I’m harsh on myself when fooled. Whichever Anonymous this is my powers of reasoning agree with (correct pronoun) completely. The crimes if any against Trump are trivial. The CRIMES committed against my fellow American citizens were acts of war and TREASONOUS deserving DEATH with PUBLIC EXECUTION.

  2. Just so we get our time line straight. The beginning of the Trump Russia connection was as early as October 2016. https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html The Atlantic Magazine reported on the Alpha Bank connection to the Trump server on October 8, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/trump-organizations-mystery-server/572485/. The left wing media was given their marching orders and they began the campaign to fool the nation and continued it after the 2016 election. RussiaGate began before the 2016 election and the coup using the Steele Dossier began in June of 2016. The efforts of The Democratic Party and the MSM weren’t quick enough to control the 2016 election but their “Big Lie” of RussiaGate did control the 2020 election. The MSM is guilty of millions of dollars of in-kind political contributions. The “Big Lie” that was the biggest lie was the “RussiaGate Lie.” The other “Big Lie” was the laptop is not Hunter’s “Big Lie.” Maybe the heads that will hang in shame will only be lowered after the mid term elections. Let’s hope so. Perhaps their heads will be hanging but they will know no shame.

    1. The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on July 31, 2016.

      There was no “coup.”

      1. You won’t stop playing word games. There was an attempted ‘coup’.

        You did the same thing with the laptop and Russian disinformation. Even the NYT admits it was not Russian disinformation. You don’t, despite the words of the 50+ agents. That is because your leftist wing hasn’t yet told you to change course, so you stand looking like a goofball.

      2. Don’t know which Anonymous this is. Attempted coup could only start after Trump was sworn in. The successful coup started then and succeeded Nov 3 2020. The number of people involved is in the tens of thousands at least. The Brookings Institute and subsidies, all the corrupt people in the DOJ, FBI, Zuckenburg, the news outlets,………….

    1. I would believe a crack whore needing a fix before I would believe 200 DoJ employees willing to abandon the rule of law and sign such a statement.

      Any lawyer worth his wing tips would never assume facts not in evidence, and state an opinion for the record. Only corrupt political hacks intent on advancing an ideological political agenda.

      1. Iowan2,

        Perhaps their poor judgement is one of the reasons that they are ‘former’ DOJ employees.

      2. Iowan,

        It was 2000 DOJ employers not 200. I’m just relieved that Turley does not share your paranoid belief in a “Deep State.”

        Don’t you find it disheartening that Turley has said virtually nothing about the House’s investigation into 1/6? Aren’t you the least bit miffed that he has not dismissed it out of hand as a “witch-hunt”? You are not worried that his silence indicates his approval?

        1. “investigation into 1/6? “

          A lot of people want that but it is prevented by the left. Capitol Riot Was A “Planned Attack,” Can’t Blame Trump; What Did Pelosi and McConnell Know?

          Investigative journalist John Solomon said the D.C. Metropolitan police has denied his news company’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to see the department’s investigation into the Capitol Hill riot. In an interview with “Real America’s Voice” host Eric Greitens on Wednesday, Solomon said police are keeping interviews with key capitol security officials secret because there is something “embarrassing.”

          The reporter said he would like to know what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the authorities knew about the attack beforehand. Solomon said he has “significant evidence” that the Capitol Police, FBI, and Congress had prior warning of a planned attack and it was not a spontaneous riot emanating from President Donald Trump’s speech that day.

          https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/13/john_solomon_capitol_riot_was_a_planned_attack_cant_blame_trump_what_did_pelosi_mcconnell_know.html

          1. I searched Turley’s archive for any mention of “John Solomon,” and there was no references. If Turley has never seen fit to rely upon John Solomon’s reporting, that’s good enough for me to ignore him too.

            1. The questions one has to ask is what Nancy Pelosi knew. Was it an intelligence failure or is there something Nancy Pelosi is not telling us?

                1. Then you agree that Pelosi, the mayor, and the police should reveal all such communications surrounding or involving Jan 6. To date, they have not released all the pertinent documents.

              1. Was it an intelligence failure or…

                There wan no National Gaurd presence in the DC.

                Either Pelosi vetoed the request, Or ignored the recommendations.

                But the Jan 6 commission is not seeking information to better understand that day. The Jan 6 committee will continue to selectively leak things like the phony phone gap scandal. Rather than find out why security was non- existent.

            2. Nice to know that you know what Jonathan turley Delta on. My observation is that he relies upon his own intellect.

              1. Schwarz says:

                “Nice to know that you know what Jonathan turley Delta on.”

                Huh?

    2. JeffSilberman, what is it with all the big numbers used by the Democrats. 2000 DOJ officials said. 50 intelligence people said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. Another big number that got it wrong. Like a big number is supposed to convince us that something is true. Just to provide you with a little incite let me inform you that people in government agencies want to keep their job during Republican and Democratic administrations. If you would have told us that maybe one or two DOJ officials wanted to be heroes for the cause and would be willing to lose their source of income if one or the other party regained power you might be more believable. They are known as career diplomats for a reason. They feed you a big number and your eyes get very wide and your mouth becomes wet with Pavlovian Slaver. You should think more deeply about how the game is played before gulp down the big number.

      1. “50 intelligence people said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.”

        They didn’t.

        You’re either ignorant or lying.

        They said “the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his time serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are lying and trying to convince with bluster

          Here are excerpts from the letter. Everyone can read this and the original letter themselves. I doubt many will accept Anonymous the Stupid’s statement above as true.

          “Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his <me serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian informa<on opera<on.”

          "our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

          "If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec8on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”

          The letter will correct the copying errors and is at: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

        2. Anonymous, you and I both know that the reason that 50 people said that they thought the Hunter laptop story had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation was to put the Russia seed in the publics mind. They were really saying, We don’t have any proof but because we are the experts you should believe what we say without question. You are the proof to my assertion because you were one of those who did believe it without question. The other thing that you believe without question is that your manipulation of the words without considering the intent of the 50 Intelligence people will somehow sway peoples opinion. They said what they said for a reason. The common vernacular would be that they tried to throw shade on the Hunter Laptop revelations. You know what they did and so does The New York Times.

            1. No one is lying about you ATS. You are a liar and all but admitted it a few statements back.

              1. You are Meyer the Troll Liar, and in your anonymous incarnation, you are also known as the one and only ATS.

        3. “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails . . . are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement . . .”

          And *that* is the point at which an objective and honest person remains silent. Their mad speculation — in print(?!) — proves that they are neither.

          (Defending such cretins makes one a useful idiot.)

          1. No, there’s nothing inconsistent about honest and objective people sharing evidence-based speculations, as long as they distinguish between the factual evidence they’re drawing on and the speculation, and they don’t pretend that the speculation is fact.

            How truly bizarre that you believe honest and objective people must “remain silent” about speculations. Especially since you claim to have worked at a university, and investigating evidence-based speculations is part of the research that some faculty conduct.

            It’s your personal opinion that it was a “mad” speculation. It’s my personal opinion that it wasn’t.

            1. “Especially since you claim . . .”

              You are the most deceptive and manipulative commenter on this blog. You use every trick in the book to debase arguments made by others and them personally.

              If the public had a better grasp of philosophy, you’d have been laughed out of here ages ago.

              1. Your opinion about me does not change the fact that honest and objective people regularly share evidence-based speculations.

                1. “evidence-based speculations”

                  No such animal exists, your word salad not withstanding.

                  1. Of course they exist! Evidence-based speculations occur in diverse kinds of research (e.g., based on evidence, medical researchers will speculate that an untried treatment might be effective for a condition and will propose that it be researched).

                    1. You are generally not speculating, rather you have resorted to lying and deceipt. Only when faced with the truth do you change your rhetoric to speculation.

                  1. “Define for me what is a fact and what is evidence.”

                    That is an excellent question to ask.

                    For it, and much of the culture, “evidence” is that which satisfies a desire. If a fact thwarts a desire, then it is not considered evidence.

                    Attempting to prove anything to such an irrational mindset is a fool’s errand.

              2. Sam, you are 100% correct. Anonymous the Stupid is here to upend any reasonable discussion. He uses deceit and is a liar.

              3. More precisely the LOGIC which Aristotle presented and philosopher s master and make their own. A philosopher seeks the truth not rhetoric to win an argument.

        4. Your statement “your either ignorant or lying” is distasteful and in my personal opinion makes you a partisan,incapable of rational discourse, will you explain to me the difference between Russian disinformation and our ex intelligence agents disingenuous disinformation.

          1. When someone makes a false statement, there are only a few possibilities: the person made a mistake (whether as a slip of the tongue/typo, or out of ignorance), or the person purposefully made a false claim (aka lying, though occasionally a joke). I do not believe that the false claim here was a typo or a joke, so it was either made out of ignorance or deceit.

            As for the second half of your sentence, you are assuming without argument that the letter was “disingenuous disinformation.”

      2. TiT asks:

        “what is it with all the big numbers used by the Democrats?”

        Exactly!

        Which is why Turley taking pride in so many million hits on this blog is nothing to shout about.

        1. So JeffSilberman, I make minced meat of your 2000 DOJ people believe statement and instead of answering you immediately go to your comment about the number of people on Professor Turley’s blog. We are used to your pattern. Deflect and in so doing obfuscate. Different day same s—-tory

          1. TiT,

            I am AGREEING with your point about the vacuity of merely counting heads! The strength of an argument is more convincing than the strength in numbers!

            1. So then Jeff why did you use the “really big number” to try to prove your point. Without the use of the “really big number” your statement has no foundation and that’s why you used it. Once again let me remind you that 50 (a big number) of intelligence people said that the Hunter laptop story had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation and that all 50 (a big number) of the intelligence people were wrong. They were not only wrong but they were wrong with bad intent. You were wrong too but your okay with that.

              1. I linked to the letter the 2000 DOJ alumni had signed onto so that people could READ it! Had I wanted to rely SOLELY rely on the sheer number, I would not have done so (it was noteworthy that so many did sign it)

    3. Since 95% of DOJ employees who donate to political campaigns, donated to the DNC or Democrat Party candidates, it is no surprise that a large number of them would tow the Democrat line — the Democrat lie. That these 2000 employees expressed their opinions about Flynn, proves nothing, otherthan their political bias.

      1. Fortunately, Turley does not judge a book by its cover, neither does he denigrate a lawyer nor a judge on account of their political persuasion. He presumes lawyers abide by their sworn oaths to act judiciously in spite of their biases. It’s a pity you do not follow Turley’s lead by taking lawyers and judges at their word and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are making good faith arguments and decisions.

        Recall Turley condemning Trump for attacking the presumed bias of a judge:

        https://jonathanturley.org/2018/02/28/judge-once-maligned-by-trump-as-a-hater-rules-in-favor-of-border-wall/

        “Trump made repeated disparaging comments about Judge Curiel. He told Fox News that Curiel had been “extremely hostile” toward him due to his position on immigration: “I think it has to do with, perhaps, the fact that I’m very, very strong on the border — very, very strong on the border,. He has been extremely hostile to me. Now, he is Hispanic, I believe.” He then repeated those comments on CNN in noting that “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico.” Then at a political rally in San Diego where Curiel sits, Trump said “I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is not doing the right thing.” He added that Curiel “happens to be, we believe, Mexican.”

        “At the time of Trump’s comments, I was one of many voicing strong objections to the personal attack.”
        ———————-

        Be more like Turley.

    4. Read the charging document, read the transcript between Gen Flynn and the Russian ambassador. I’m poor but I’ll give you $20 if you can find a crime.

      1. I’ve read the charging document. I’ve also read many of the other public court documents and even quoted from one of them in this thread. I’ve read the public transcripts and know that not all of the transcripts were made public. The crime is knowingly and willfully making a materially false statement.

        1. You say you can read. Should we believe you? Maybe. Do you understand and know what you are talking about? No.

      2. Schwarz bets:

        “I’m poor but I’ll give you $20 if you can find a crime.”

        Don’t strain yourself. Make it a $5 bet then. I don’t have to read it. On the advice of his legal counsel, Flynn freely admitted his guilt to a crime. No one held a gun to his head. Case closed.

      1. Schwarz says:

        “Good faith argument. Ha Ha Ha ha Ha. Your joking or You live on bizarre o planet.”

        That’s what I said. And Turley says it all the time.

  3. Matt Gaetz, a Republican, is the one being investigated for bringing a minor over state lines and then having sex with her.

    Technically an ephebophile rather than a pedophile, admittedly.

      1. Here you go:
        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/matt-gaetz-s-ex-girlfriend-testifies-grand-jury-sex-trafficking-n1287352

        And it’s truly ironic that you demand a link when you still haven’t provided a link for your claim “DoJ rules concerning ANY conversations with Administration officials by making a request for an interview, with the White House Counsels office,” despite having been asked for proof of your claim. Hypocrite.

        1. The corrupt DoJ dragging out a political persecution for months?
          OK got it.
          In the famous words of Harry Reid. ‘did we lie’, so what, we won

          Grand juries are secret and the whole thing is political smear tact
          And I posted the Comey interview explaining in his own words the FBI’s goal was to find something to get Flynn fired, or something to charge him with. and his conscience decision to ignore a request to White House Counsel, and never informing Flynn they we interviewing him for any crime or misdeed.

    1. The 4:48pm comment was intended as a response to the 3:10 PM claim that “The Left has a groomer and pedophile problem.”

      There’s a tech glitch that periodically decouples my replies from the comment they were posted in reply to.

  4. Enough of this cancel the Constitution culture!

    Enough of the Obama Coup D’etat in America!

    When will #real President Donald J. Trump take the action necessary to fully abrogate the “swamp” of the Global Deep Deep State, and Save the Nation?

    What Would George Washington Do…become The King of America?
    ______________________________________________________

    “Napoleon Bonaparte”

    “Immediately upon returning from his famed Egyptian military campaign in October 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte began scheming to overthrow the five-member Directory that ruled France. With the support of several high-level co-conspirators, including two of the five directors, Napoleon arranged for a special legislative session to take place outside Paris on November 10. Using a combination of propaganda, bribery and intimidation, he hoped to cajole the legislature into putting him in charge. The lower house instead bombarded him with abuse, chanting “down with the dictator” and chasing him from the chamber. But he managed to prevail anyway by convincing troops to clear the area and then—in an attempt to preserve the veneer of constitutionality—convening a small, handpicked group of legislatures to abolish the Directory and appoint him to a three-member Consulate. Quickly becoming first consul, Napoleon completed his consolidation of power in 1804, when he crowned himself emperor.”

  5. “At points, however, Michael Sussmann sounded more like Michael Flynn in arguing that, even if he gave false information, it was trivial and did not warrant a criminal charge.”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    Th Obama Coup D’etat in America was/is “…trivial and did not warrant a criminal charge…” as it was…

    A Coup D’etat By A Thousand Cuts.

  6. OT

    Tweet
    See new Tweets
    Conversation
    Wittgenstein
    @backtolife_2022

    Pippa Malmgren, Economist At The World Government Summit 2022

    She states her belief that the world financial system is about to switch accounting systems & digital money. Not decentralized cryptos, but centralized CBDCs (central bank digital currency)

    16.4K views
    0:48 / 1:43
    9:59 AM · Mar 30, 2022·Twitter Web App
    220
    Retweets
    75
    Quote Tweets
    272
    Likes

    1. Pippa Malmgren must be prosecuted for aggravated anti-American activities, usurpation, subversion and treason; it must be penalized commensurately with extreme prejudice.

  7. OT

    “Using sophisticated technology and software, iCOP was running keyword searches like “protest” on social media to collect online speech about a host of different events that contained no threats and had nothing to do with the Postal Service’s work.”

    “The inspector general report notes that in April 2021 Postal Inspection Service lawyers asked iCOP to remove ‘protest’ from its keyword searches ‘to protect constitutional rights.’

    “Frank Albergo, president of the Postal Police Officers Association, told Yahoo News that the Postal Inspection Service had ‘lost their way.’

    “’At this point they might as well take their mission statement of protecting the Postal Service and its employees and throw it in the garbage,’ Albergo said, arguing that not enough attention is being paid by the agency to the “mail theft epidemic” of postal property that was happening at the same time.”

    – Yahoo News
    ___________

    The United States Post Office is apparently spying on Americans who aren’t communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) enough.

    The Constitution provides near-total rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities to individuals, while it severely limits and restricts Congress and government.

    What the —- is the judicial branch doing and where are the Justices who swore an oath to “support” the “manifest tenor” of the U.S. Constitution – they are all busy committing crimes of high office.

    They are all busy criminally implementing the principles of communism in America.

    What mechanism did the Framers provide Americans to enforce against subversive and treasonous crimes of high office – from the Postmaster General, judicial branch and “swamp,” to the president?

    Impeachment and conviction – en masse.

  8. The gist of this article is Turley’s pointing out the hypocrisy of the legal analysts working at Fox’s cable competitors. Though he may have some concerns about this federal law criminalizing making misleading statements to the FBI, he NEVER once dismissed the charges against Flynn as a “victimless process crime” or called the Mueller investigation a “witch-hunt” as did his Fox News brethren. For example, here is what Hannity had to say:

    “Just breaking, big news out of the Mueller witch-hunt. The special counsel just released its report on Lieutenant General Michael Flynn — you know, the guy that served his country 33 years, five years in combat?”

    “Now, Mueller is recommending after all of this time no prison time for General Flynn. But the damage has been done. Flynn is, quote, a convicted felon, a victimless process crime based on evidence that is suspect.”

    https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/hannity-flynns-life-has-been-in-limbo-for-this

    Unlike lying Trumpists, Turley is consistent- law and order no matter the political stripe of the defendant- proving once again he is a NeverTrumper.

    1. https://twitter.com/lone_rides/status/1509933344737398785

      The Left has a groomer and pedophile problem and until they address it, they have no moral authority on anything.

      “Republicans hate the LGBT community!”

      First, verifiably false.
      Second, what does the LGBT community have to do with groomers and pedophiles?

      Unless you’re saying that the groomers and pedophiles are using the LGBT community as shields, which means they should be driven out.

      See, you’re not dealing with the old school conservatives.

      They’re still around, they just exist in your party as “former Republicans” grifting off your stupidity.

      You’re dealing with the conservatives who don’t rightly care if men marry or women live together. Hell, if a man wants to become a woman and his husband is cool with the transition and they become straight-by-definition, we don’t care.

      Not our circus. Not our monkeys.

      Dye your hair pink, slap a Trans Lives Matter sticker on your car, and wear socks with sandals. We don’t care.

      Just get our coffee order right. That’s all we want.

      The problem is when you decide you’re going to start telling our children that they’re not really hims and hers, but they’re zes and zers.

      Who the actual hell do you think you are, confusing them like that?

      Just because your mental illness has effed up your life doesn’t mean you get to spread that sh/t to other people.

      See your therapist. Get well.

      “But your kids are growing up with gender and pronoun norms and they may be trans or gay or fluid.”

      And when they decide that, I will be there to talk to them. But it will be their decision, not some gender studies loser who was dumb enough to take loans out for a sh/t degree.

      What kids think about:

      Can I go play? What’s for dinner? Can I have a snack?

      What kids don’t think about:

      What are my pronouns? Who do I find sexually attractive?

      If you’re actively trying to change what kids think about, you’re a groomer

  9. It may be time (after the GOP retakes control of both houses of Congress) to indict those roughly 50 intelligence professionals who willfully lied about the Hunter Biden laptop, in October of 2020. Their lies were willful, material, and there is now substantially doubt whether Joe Biden would have won the Nov. 2020 election –
    the ‘real’ voter fraud was the cover-up/lying by not only those 50, but the Democrats who believed them and promoted the lies.

      1. Without any doubt, Sussman and Elias and anyone else involved in the “Russian hoax,” must be charged, tried and hopefully convicted. The Russia hoax was no small matter, and what Sussman said was NOT TRIVIAL. In addition, whether or not they are put in jail, those who are attorneys must be disbarred to save the legal profession and our system of justice, from total meltdown.

    1. You haven’t provided any evidence that they lied, and I doubt that you can.

      Even if they did lie, there is no law against lying in a public letter. It wasn’t a statement under oath, it wasn’t a statement to the FBI, …

        1. Ralph’s claim that “It may be time … to indict” is about a legal issue, not a moral issue.

          My morals say that people should not be indicted unless there’s sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury that they did something criminal.

      1. “You haven’t provided any evidence that they lied, and I doubt that you can.”

        It’s already been proven that the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden and was not Russian disinformation. The claim by these 50 intelligence agents has been proven false…a lie. While it’s not a crime to lie to the media the government can and should remove their security clearances.

        1. Doublespeak. Its en vogue again

          ===

          Mary Margaret Olohan
          @MaryMargOlohan
          Here’s a translation of the AZ legislation that Psaki is lamenting:

          1. Bans aborting babies after 15 weeks
          2. Bans transgender sex change surgeries for minors (kids)
          3. Bans biological males from participating in women’s sports

          Jen Psaki
          @PressSec

          Today, four extreme and harmful bills were signed into law in Oklahoma and Arizona, three targeting transgender youth (2 AZ, 1 OK) and one reproductive health care (AZ). These laws are unacceptable and we won’t stop fighting for justice and equality.

          ===

          In other words, Biden’s Handlers occupying the White House pushes for minors to undergo body mutilation surgery, to erase women’s sports, and for late-term abortion

          https://thepostmillennial.com/white-house-pushes-for-minors-to-undergo-body-mutilation-surgery-to-erase-womens-sports-and-for-late-term-abortion

        2. No, nothing they actually said has been proven wrong.

          You can’t be bothered to distinguish between what they actually said and what you want to substitute. That’s why you refer to “The claim by these 50 intelligence agents” but cannot quote it.

        3. IIRC, oaths are involved with attaining and maintaining a security clearance. In fact the following is a list of the factors that are consider in granting security clearances.
          National security eligibility determinations take into account a person’s:

          Stability
          Trustworthiness
          Reliability
          Discretion
          Character
          Honesty
          Judgment
          Unquestionable loyalty to the U.S.

          So if they have an active security clearance and they lie during an investigation, then they would be lying under oath. At a minimum, they should have their security clearances revoked.

          1. Yes, IF they lie in an investigation.

            So far, not a single person — including you — has presented evidence that they lied in the first place, much less that they lied to an investigator.

            1. It is incredible how much Anonymous the Stupid knows of his argument (though most are wrong or based on lies). Still, he suddenly becomes ignorant when the discussion turns in another direction. ATS, you protest too much.

            2. So far, not a single person — including you — has presented evidence that they lied in the first place, much less that they lied to an investigator.

              More tilting at windmills from you. 🙈🙉 My response was to Ivan regarding what’s considered in granting security clearances. I said if lied, then at a minimum they should lose their security clearance.

              1. Yes, you said “if [they] lied, then at a minimum they should lose their security clearance.” I agree. But my point is that so far, no one has shown that they lied, and when the IF clause isn’t shown to be true, then nothing follows from it.

      2. “You haven’t provided any evidence that they lied, and I doubt that you can.”

        Ex-CIA official who signed letter warning Hunter Biden laptop story was disinfo proud Trump lost

        “I take special pride in personally swinging the election away from Trump,” John Sipher, a former CIA deputy chief of Russian Operations, recently posted on Twitter. “I lost the election for Trump? Well then I [feel] pretty good about my influence.”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/30/would-the-use-of-burner-phones-by-trump-violate-the-presidential-records-act/comment-page-3/#comment-2170776

        These people are brazen.

      3. “Even if they did lie, there is no law against lying in a public letter. It wasn’t a statement under oath, it wasn’t a statement to the FBI, …”

        Anonymous the Stupid is telling us how he feels about lying. It seems to match his rhetoric on this blog, where he lies continuously. I want to thank him for this rare occasion where he tells us truthfully how he feels.

        To ATS, lying comes naturally. We should believe him and not trust anything he says.

    2. Trump was never going to legitimately win in 2020, because: 1. he never broke a 50% approval rating in 4 years’ time; 2. he was predicted by every single poll to lose; 3. he cheated in 2016, then wouldnt’ cooperate with the Mueller investigation; nevertheless, some of his top campaign officials either pleaded guilty to crimes or were found guilty; 4. he botched the pandemic, and his lying and downplaying of the risk cost the lives of 130,000 Americans; 4. he caused the worst recession since the Great Depression due to his incompetent handling of the economy and the trade war he started with China; the shortage of computer chips and other component parts for automobiles, appliances and other consumer goods is directly responsible for many of the supply-chain issues we are still dealing with 5. he alienated most of our allies with his arrogance and bullying; 6. he trashed NATO and the EU, the stupidity of which is now obvious; Biden has repaired these relationships, and America’s relationships with our NATO allies are stronger than ever; 7. there was nothing in the Hunter Biden laptop that would change the minds of most Americans that Trump is an incompetent, toxic lying narcissist with no leadership abilities whatsoever. There’s no evidence from the Hunter Biden laptop that Joe Biden committed any crimes. More of the alt-right fantasies they sell you every day. Trump lost because most Americans wanted him gone. There is NO doubt about this, much less “substantial” doubt.

        1. You Trumpsters do not speak for the collective “we”. More proof of your indoctrination. Most Americans find Trump repulsive, which is why WE never voted for him in 2016 or 2020.

      1. “I’ll have those ——- voting democrat for 200 years.”

        Lyndon Baines Johnson
        ___________________

        The perpetual mass purchase of votes.

        Oh, —- no, that’s not election tampering and vote fraud.

        “Crazy” Abe Lincoln’s failure to deport 3 million illegal aliens in 1863.

        Oh, —- no, that’s not election tampering and vote fraud.

        Masses crossing the southern border illegally, being given “amnesty” to vote democrat.

        Oh, —- no that’s not election tampering and vote fraud.

        Vote-By-Mail without any controls.

        Oh, —- no that’s not election tampering and vote fraud.

        Ballot harvesting.

        Oh, —- no that’s not election tampering and vote fraud.

    3. Congress cannot “Indict”….it takes a judicial process to gain an Indictment.

      Congress can make Criminal Referrals to the DOJ….and DOJ then decides whether to kick off the Judicial Process.

  10. Attorney Elias needs to have a few things happen to him. He needs to be disbarred. He needs to spend some time in a prison cell for a certain period of time.
    He needs to have his assets stripped from him. He is a disgrace to lawyers no matter their political stripe. And to admit, rightly so, that due to his loose relationship with truth he is sought out by certain Democrats, even after all these revelations, is really saying something about Elias, the man, and the Dems who seek his brand of help.

      1. Just for fun, what would have happened if Pence refused to count the EC votes from 3 states? What crime, what relief?

  11. This man is part of a conspiracy with many characters in and outside of our government who fabricated a document to prevent an American citizen’s attempt to become President of the United States. The false document further with the help of government employees at various levels, civilians and media became the catalyst for a full blown impeachment attempt on this man who became President. This man’s hands and others are all over this conspiracy. So how in Gods name is his submission for defense anywhere near Gen Flynn? Further I ask you to remove the names of the players and judge the crime for what it is?

    In a court filing first reported by the Associated Press, the justice department said it moved to dismiss the charges “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information”.
    The department said the interview between investigators and Flynn in January 2017 was “unjustified” and not conducted on a “legitimate investigative basis”.
    It also said it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Flynn had lied, and said that after the interview, FBI agents had “expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr Flynn had lied”.
    The department also said proving someone made a false statement to federal investigators “requires more than a lie.
    “It also requires demonstrating that such a statement was ‘material’ to the underlying investigation.”

    1. That was Bill Barr lying on Flynn’s behalf. The interview was justified by Flynn having lied to Pence about his conversations with a foreign adversary — the Russian ambassador — and Flynn’s reasons for lying to Pence *was* material to the Russia investigation.

      Flynn’s choice to plead guilty was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the DOJ had additional evidence about Flynn having knowingly lied to the FBI agents (e.g., copies of emails)

      1. The interview was justified by Flynn having lied to Pence about his conversations with a foreign adversary
        Not a violation of law. Ambiguous enough to not even be a lie. Not a lie because the FBI had a transcript ot the call.
        The fact. Pence can feel abused and ask the President to fire Flynn. But the FBI has no role. Flynn’s role requires the conversation(s) that happened. How he reports to Tump, is none of the FBI’s concern

        IF. a big if, The FBI wanted to interview a member of the Administration, DoJ rules require a request go through the White House Counsel. A step we know the FBI considered and rejected.

        1. “Not a violation of law. ”

          The FBI’s interviews aren’t limited to violations of law. They do all sorts of clearance interviews, gathering of information interviews, etc.

          The incoming NSA lied to the VP-elect about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, and Pence had repeated Flynn’s lie on TV, so Russia knew that Flynn had lied to Pence, and Russia might use that to blackmail Flynn. That’s a totally legit reason for the FBI to investigate why Flynn lied to Pence about Flynn’s conversations with a foreign adversary, no matter how many times you deny it.

          “Ambiguous enough to not even be a lie.”

          No, it wasn’t ambiguous at all. Here’s the relevant part of the exchange that Pence had with a CBS reporter:

          JOHN DICKERSON: “Let me ask you about it was reported by David Ignatius that the incoming national security advisor Michael Flynn was in touch with the Russian ambassador on the day the United States government announced sanctions for Russian interference with the election. Did that contact help with that Russian kind of moderate response to it? That there was no counter-reaction from Russia. Did the Flynn conversation help pave the way for that sort of more temperate Russian response?”
          PENCE: “I talked to General Flynn about that conversation…. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. … what I can confirm, having spoken to him about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions.”

          So Pence spoke to Flynn about, and some of what Flynn told Pence was an out-and-out lie, because Flynn DID discuss “the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia” with Kislyak.

          The only other possibility is that Flynn was honest with Pence, but Pence was lying to Dickerson about what Flynn told Pence. However, Flynn admitted that he hadn’t told Pence about this, and Pence and Trump both stated that Flynn had lied to Pence and lied to the FBI:
          Trump: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”
          Pence, in response to a reporter’s question “When [Flynn] was fired, did you know he had lied to the FBI?” responded: “What I can tell you is that I knew that he had lied to me — and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.”

          “How he reports to Tump, is none of the FBI’s concern”

          You’re nuts. Of course it’s an FBI concern if an NSA is lying about conversations with a foreign adversary and could be blackmailed by that adversary!

          “IF. a big if, The FBI wanted to interview a member of the Administration, DoJ rules require a request go through the White House Counsel.”

          If that’s true, you’ve yet to provide any evidence of it. You’ve often made false statements, and you generally won’t even admit when you’re wrong, so your assertion is worthless without evidence.

          1. Let’s not forget the lies Joe Biden has told, on the record, about Hunter. Should Joe be indicted for his willful lies in order to get elected POTUS?

            1. It’s often entirely legal to lie.

              Flynn and Sussman were charged under 18 U.S. Code § 1001. Under what law are you suggesting that Biden be charged?

              1. Anonymous: The RICO laws would apply in the case of Hunter and Joe…but, there is no one who will charge either of them under the laws of double standard which we have today.

                  1. I quoted your words and then spoke the truth, Anonymous the Stupid.

                    “It’s often entirely legal to lie.”

                    You do it all the time, so you must know.

            2. “Should Joe be indicted for his willful lies in order to get elected POTUS?”

              Of course he should be indicted for Joe was central to the criminal activity.

          2. The FBI was so well founded in their mission, they considered, and ignored, DoJ rules concerning ANY conversations with Administration officials by making a request for an interview, with the White House Counsels office.

            Again. How the administration conduct business is none of the FBI’s concern.

            1. Again: unless you present evidence to substantiate your claim about these DOJ rules, I have zero reason to trust you’re correct. You often make false claims, and you generally can’t even bring yourself to admit you were wrong when you’re presented with evidence that you were wrong.

              Whether the incoming NSA lied to the VP-elect about conversations with a foreign adversary is **absolutely** the FBI’s business, no matter how many times you opine otherwise.

          3. The deeper the hole Anonymous the Stupid digs for himself, the longer his responses become.

          4. “In both of those administrations there was process, so if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, and there would be discussions and approvals of who would be there and I thought it’s early enough, let’s just send a couple guys over,” Comey said. “And so we placed a call to Flynn and said ‘Hey, we’re sending a couple guys over, hope you’ll talk to them.’ He said ‘sure.’ Nobody else was there, they interviewed him in a conference room at the White House situation room and he lied to them.”

            Wallace followed up, asking Comey what he though Flynn thought the conversation was going to be about.
            “I don’t think he knew,” Comey said. “We didn’t tell him.”

            Comey’s comments come on the heels of new Federalist reporting from co-founder Sean Davis that FBI documents reveal that the federal law enforcement agency’s goal was to get Flynn fired.

            Handwritten notes from the FBI obtained by The Federalist reveal that the agents investigating Flynn under Comey’s direction sought “to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.”

            https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/30/comey-bragged-about-violating-fbi-policy-to-ambush-flynn-in-corrupt-setup/

            1. Thanks for confirming that you can’t quote any DOJ rule, despite having claimed that there was a DOJ rule.

              As for the handwritten notes, you should look at the notes themselves:
              https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.11.pdf

              What you’ll find is that your article is lying to you by omitting the first part of the quote, omitting a key question mark, and ignoring the rest of the notes.

              That bullet in the notes said “What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Of course, the Federalist can’t even bring itself to quote that they considered both options, and the Federalist can’t admit that it was presented as a question, so they just omit the first option — “truth/admission” — and pretend that only the second option was considered and replace the question mark with a period.

              The notes conclude “If we’re seen as playing games, WH will be furious. Protect our institution by not playing games.”

              1. Why would the FBI goal include “get him to lie”….

                That proves corrupt intent

                Spin all you want. The truth has been revealed There was no lie. Except for the FBI that edited the 302 3 times by 3 different people, none of which were at the interview.

                You are blind to the 100 of events the prove the corruption of the DoJ/FBI.

                1. There were multiple lies from Flynn, and if you ever bothered to familiarize yourself with the primary documents, you’d have read the agents’ handwritten notes from the interview and you’d have read the initial draft, and you’d know that both the handwritten notes and the original draft have Flynn’s lies. Both the handwritten notes and the original draft were declassified.

                  1. We have gone through handwritten notes, missing notes and rewritten notes, but you have stuck to your lies, hoping that everyone else has forgotten what was learned in the interim. Flynn’s statements were recorded, and he knew that because of previously held positions. Flynn was careless, swimming around sharks he thought to be colleagues unofficially bantering. Even though he did nothing to deserve his pain and suffering, he paid for that.

                    ATS, you are again twisting events and lying. That was proven the first time around.

                2. It was a question: is our goal A or B? It was not a statement “our goal is B.” You’re just too disinterested in the truth to admit it.

              2. Comey’s interview never gets around to identifying a purpose for the Flynn interview.
                And the Past Practice is just standard DoJ rules of ethics.

      2. Anonymous: Lucky for you that this site does not shut down what they believe to be Russian disinformation…on some other sites, you would be banned.

        But, like Prof. Turley, I will tolerate everyone’s opinion, even when they are clearly wrong and/or biased.

        1. Jose, if I said something false, just present evidence that it’s false, so I can correct my mistake. Asserting that it’s “Russian disinformation” but not even presenting any evidence that it’s false is … extremely weak.

          1. ATS, you earlier told us that lying was OK (won’t cause problems) unless lying under oath. Why should everyone prove to you that you are lying when lying comes naturally to you?

            You are hoping everyone wastes a lot of time proving your lies to be lies. Why should they do that? Alternatively, are you hoping people won’t call you out because of the time needed to prove your lies? They don’t have to spend the time. You are all but an admitted liar.

      3. You don’t know the exact words Flynn said to Pence or the context. Nor do you know the possible misunderstanding between the two. Whatever Flynn told Pence was only of concern to the two of them. The FBI had the tapes of what Flynn said to Kislyac, so nothing was hidden.

        This joker, Anonymous the Stupid, picks up minute, insignificant details and then puts them together with deceit and lies.

        1. Meyer the Liar continues trolling, because that’s all he know how to do.

          Pence, in response to a reporter’s question “When [Flynn] was fired, did you know he had lied to the FBI?” responded: “What I can tell you is that I knew that he had lied to me — and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.”

          Trump said “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”

          But Meyer the Liar suggests that we can’t know whether Flynn lied to Pence since the conversationo wasn’t audiotaped. It’s really striking that Meyer the Liar is a Trumpist, but Meyer the Liar doesn’t want to believe Trump’s statement that “he [Flynn] lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”

          1. ATS, you are proving yourself Stupid. You don’t recognize that lies or misstatements by the FBI and hyped by the press can cause people to misinterpret events. Yes, you need the quote you can’t possibly have. We see arguments like that all the time because there was some fault in the information channel.

            Keep living up to your name, Anonymous the Stupid.

  12. Much BS in the news and on this blog. Our blog. Let’s talk about things and people who kill large numbers of humans each day. Tobacco. Shops that sell tobacco. Drugs. Drug smugglers. Guns are quicker if you want suicide.

    1. He doesn’t read the comments. If you want him to correct it, email him (email address is on his GWU faculty page).

  13. @Ralph,
    The lie was that he did this of his own volition and wasn’t working on behalf of a client.

    That’s actually very material.

    Its not like the FBI asking what he had for breakfast the other day and he said eggs and bacon, when he really had pancakes. Totally immaterial to their line of questioning but the FBI saw it as a lie.

    Flynn misspoke and his ‘lie’ was immaterial to their line of questioning.

    Sussman is not going to like going to prison… even if its for a short period of time. He should plead guilty now and not after Nov 2022.

    -G

    1. Ian Michael Gumby,

      “ Flynn misspoke and his ‘lie’ was immaterial to their line of questioning.”

      Flynn didn’t “misspeak”. He intentionally lied to the FBI agents who were questioning him. He was recorded on phone conversations which the FBI was well aware of. Flynn pled guilty twice and was found guilty in court.

      Turley leaves out one important difference here. Flynn was under criminal investigation, Sussman was not because he was volunteering information. Durham doesn’t dispute the validity of the information Sussman provided but alleges that because Sussman didn’t disclose who he was working for it was a lie of omission on a matter not related to what Sussman was talking to the FBI about. That’s immaterial to the case Durham is making.

      Flynn on the other hand was on record saying one thing and telling the FBI another. In a criminal investigation.

      1. No, Svelaz, Flynn was not “under criminal investigation.” Not sure why you think he was.

        There was no suspected crime when the FBI interviewed Flynn, they simply wanted to find out why Flynn had lied to Pence about his conversations with Kislyak.

          1. For once, I actually agree with Sveltz. Given the utter ack of predicate, the slipshod way the agents approached the whole RussiaRussiaRussia! matter, and the objective fact that the whole Crossfire xyz was nothing but political revenge Svelaz is absolutely correct: The investigation itself was criminal.

          2. I’m pretty certain that Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor were counterintelligence investigations, not criminal ones, albeit that they resulted in some criminal charges.

            1. “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

              – Barack Obama
              ______________

              “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”

              – Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
              _________________________________

              “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

    2. “That’s actually very material.”

      How would the FBI’s response have been different if he’d said that he was there on behalf of a client?

  14. Should not these guys be disbarred and learn a new trade. I would suggest sewage management and trouble shooting with a heavy dose of operations.

  15. If Sussman’s patently false statements were insignificant, immaterial, and irrelevant…..why did the FBI initiate an Investigation?

    The Steele dossier was described by the FBI as being a critical part of evidence used to gain Warrants from the FISA Court on four occasions.

    Sussmann participated in a conspiracy with Hillary Clinton, her campaign advisors such as Jake Sullivan, Elias, and others to scuttle Donald Trump’s candidacy for the Office of President.

    Clinton et al conspired to interfere with the 2016 Election and did so successfully with the able assistance of the FBI and the Media.

    That conspiracy failed in its initial objective of defeating Trump’s Election then continued post-election thus in my view amounted to Sedition.

    The Democrats can do their usual lie and deny and try to weasel out of their criminal misconduct but they have been caught red handed this time.

    The only question is whether AG Garland shall remain true to the Law and prosecute those identified as being coconspirators in this criminal conspiracy.

    I do not remain hopeful that shall happen.

    It is that refusal by the DOJ to attend to the impartial conduct of Justice in this Country that allows such conduct to occur….and that spells ill for the future of this Nation of ours.

    1. Indeed, and that being the case, it is only natural to assume the dems did similar in 2020. That they did so with a largely non-fatal virus is downright unforgivable. We have already seen they care not for law, and that ruining lives, livelihoods, and economies are trivial matters to them. What lengths might they go to next time, if unimpeded?

  16. One fundamental difference between the Sussman and Flynn question of materiality is that the FBI had the complete transcripts of Flynn’s calls so they knew exactly what he said. A genuine inquiry would have been about any ambiguities on the call, motivations for it and who else knew about it, not it’s contents, which the FBI already knew. Even with that knowledge, the agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying. There is no way that what Flynn said about the contents of the call could have been material to the investigation because the FBI already knew precisely what was said.

    On the other hand, the FBI did not know that Sussman was acting at the time on behalf of the Clinton campaign or Joffe. That would have been new information, and Durham is right to argue that knowing that could have affected how the FBI moved forward.

    1. “A genuine inquiry would have been about any ambiguities on the call, motivations for it and who else knew about it, not it’s contents, which the FBI already knew.”

      No. That wasn’t the reason for the interview. The reason for the interview was that Flynn had lied to Pence about the contents of the calls (there were more than one), and they wanted to get at Flynn’s motivation for lying to Pence, not at his motivations for the calls or the contents of the calls.

      “Even with that knowledge, the agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying.”

      They did not **initially** think that he was lying, but after gathering more evidence about the calls — after it became clear that Flynn had lied to Pence about the contents of the calls — they became convinced that Flynn had also lied to the agents about the calls.

      “There is no way that what Flynn said about the contents of the call could have been material to the investigation because the FBI already knew precisely what was said. ”

      Again: The reason for the interview was that Flynn had lied to Pence about the contents of the calls, and they wanted to get at Flynn’s motivation for lying to Pence. Flynn’s reasons for lying to Pence about his conversations with a foreign adversary **was** material to the investigation.

      “Durham is right to argue that knowing that could have affected how the FBI moved forward.”

      Then you should be able to counter Sussman’s argument about it: which is that the FBI would have moved forward on the information regardless of whether Sussman made the statement on behalf of a client. According to you, how would the FBI’s response have been different? Durham hasn’t made a clear argument about that so far.

      1. So why didn’t the FBI show him the transcript and ask him what he said to Pence and why?

          1. It’s not just a random statement from one official to another. When the lie is to the VP-elect, and it’s made by the incoming NSA about communication with a foreign adversary, it falls under the FBI’s counterintelligence responsibilities.

            1. If it was a counterintelligence operation related to what Flynn said to Pence why didn’t they ask him what he said to Pence, show him the transcripts and ask him to explain any inconsistency? The agents investigating Flynn had already concluded that he was not a security risk and had recommended the operation be shut down.

              1. Daniel, good point. It seems the normal process of FBI agents investigating anything Trump was not followed. Schiff was informed that his mistress was a Chinese spy, which gave her the ability to leave town before being investigated. The FBI held information from Trump.

                As this has all been discussed before, ATS knows better. He is spinning and lying as usual.

              2. I’m not them, and I will not pretend to read their minds about whether they considered bringing the transcripts in, and if so, why they chose not to, and if not, why not. All I have access to are the public documents about it, and if you look at the 302 from the interview, you’ll find that more than once in the interview, they do remind Flynn of things that he’d said, and he said “yes, good reminder” at one point:
                https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.198.7.pdf

                As for “The agents investigating Flynn had already concluded that he was not a security risk and had recommended the operation be shut down,” yes, that’s what they thought **before** Pence made it clear on national TV that Flynn had lied to him. But as soon as Pence said on TV “I talked to General Flynn about that conversation…. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. … what I can confirm, having spoken to [Flynn] about it, is that those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions,” THAT set off bells, because they knew that Flynn DID discuss “the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia” with Kislyak.

                THAT is why they decided to interview Flynn: because he was lying to Pence about conversations with a foreign adversary, which meant that Flynn might be compromised.

                1. In this case, the truth requires only a few words. Lying requires a lengthy response, as you have done here. The FBI set a number of traps and even scenarios that weren’t true. You adopted all the lies and continue to push them on this blog.

        1. If you want me to answer another of your questions, you’ll have to answer the question of mine — “According to you, how would the FBI’s response have been different?” — that you ignored. Don’t expect me to answer yours while you ignore mine.

            1. Durham hasn’t claimed that Baker ever asked Sussman whether he was there on behalf of a client, so there’s no reason to think that Baker thought it important to question the client. And unless Sussman had Joffe’s permission to name Joffe, I doubt that Sussman could have given Joffe’s name, only said that he was there on a client’s behalf.

              More to the point, if Baker thought it important to question someone else about the data, don’t you think he’d have wanted to question whoever gathered the data in the first place? He didn’t ask about that.

              Durham alleges:
              “SUSSMANN provided to the FBI General Counsel three “white papers” along with data files allegedly containing evidence
              supporting the existence of this purported secret communications channel. During the meeting, … SUSSMANN stated falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations “for any client,” which led the FBI General
              Counsel to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative.”

              But the information that Sussman passed along clearly wasn’t information that Sussman himself had gathered, nor did Sussman suggest that he himself had gathered the data. It clearly came from elsewhere, yet as one of Sussman’s lawyers said in yesterday’s hearing before the judge about the dismissal motion: “We don’t think Baker or anyone else at FBI ever asked, btw, where’d this info come from? If source mattered so much, you’d think someone would have said, where’d this come from, how’d they get it? Thrust of arg is so important to test sources. Nobody asked abt it.”

              (That quote comes from emptywheel.net/2022/04/01/michael-sussmanns-lawyers-complain-of-wildly-untimely-notices-from-durham/ She was listening to the hearing, as she’s been writing about the case, and as is often the case if you’re typing what someone says in a live hearing and don’t have an audiotape that let’s you check your transcription, it may not be an exact quote. But based on what I know of Marcy Wheeler’s live-tweeting from hearings, it should be an accurate paraphrase. The Sussman docket doesn’t have the hearing transcript yet.)

      2. ATS is providing his usual BS along with distortions and lies. Flynn had a particular understanding of how the security apparatus worked, and he was a threat to Obama and the criminal activities targeting Trump and everyone surrounding Trump.

        The left’s entire focus was getting Trump and hiding all the bad things they had done to Trump before the election.

        There was nothing said by Flynn that was meaningful. That has been proven repeatedly. Flynn knew the FBI had tapes of calls, etc. He assumed the initial interview was a discussion between colleagues, so he wasn’t on guard for trick questions that could be expanded. By all rights, that interview with Flynn should never have taken place.

Leave a Reply