Beware the Eephus: Durham Lowers the Boom on Former Clinton Counsel Michael Sussmann

Last year, I wrote a column titled “Beware the Eephus.” An Eephus is an a high-arching, off-speed pitch . . . or Special Counsel John Durham. I warned that Durham works slow but throws strikes. Former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann may have just found that out. He swung and missed at the ultimate Eephus.

In a Monday night filing, Durham revealed that he has an incriminating statement by Sussmann that dramatically undermined his defense. In the text message, Sussmann denied that he was representing anyone before his critical meeting with the FBI. He then repeated the false statement in that meeting as he pushed a false Russian collusion claim against Donald Trump.

Sussmann has been seeking the dismissal on the single charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for lying to the FBI in a meeting with the then-FBI General Counsel James Baker.

In the indictment, Sussmann is accused of “mak[ing] a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation” in conversations with 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 institution 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 FEC recently fined the Clinton Campaign and the DNC for hiding the funding of the dossier as a legal cost by Elias at Perkins Coie.

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 has sounded a lot like Michael Flynn in court as he argued that this was trivial and inconsequential comment. On Monday night, Durham lowered the boom.  He revealed that, before the meeting, Sussmann sent “the same lie in writing” that his effort was “not on behalf of a client or company.”

Durham is seeking the introduction of a text message to Baker that said:

“Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

Thus, Durham writes that

“on September 18, 2016 at 7:24 p.m., i.e., the night before the defendant met with the General Counsel, the defendant conveyed the same lie in writing and sent the following text message to the General Counsel’s personal cellphone.”

The filing is particularly notable after the FEC sanctions for hiding the Clinton Campaign’s funding of the Steele Dossier.

During the campaign, a few reporters did ask about the possible connection to the campaign, but Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement. It was only weeks after the election that journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie.

New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

“It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.”

The text message greatly strengthens the case by undermining the argument that Sussmann’s concealment of the role of the Clinton Campaign was a single mistake or “one-off” occurrence. This could be used to show intent as part of a pattern of deceit.

Notably, the filings state that

“The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign (“Campaign Lawyer-1″).”

“Campaign Lawyer-1” is a reference to Marc Elias, Sussmann’s partner at Perkins Coie who is accused to concealing the same connections with the Steele Dossier during the campaign.

Sussmann’s trial is scheduled to begin on May 16.

 

131 thoughts on “Beware the Eephus: Durham Lowers the Boom on Former Clinton Counsel Michael Sussmann”

  1. Even worse, Durham dropped the boom that in hearings, under oath, with Congressional investigators. He said that he was working on behalf of a client. So was he lying to Congress, or the FBI?

    1. Even worse, of course it’s worse: The FBI certainly knew who Sussman was working for, they are workers within the same corrupt network that’s pulling Joe Biden’s strings. The text messages, the contradictory testimony, is intended to confuse, and provide the defense with a reasonable doubt, and gives the DOJ/FBI the gift of credible deniability. If anyone believes Baker was unaware of Sussman’s relationship with DNC and the Clinton Campaign, then let’s talk about an investment opportunity – you supply the funds, stay silent, and trust me.

    1. Anonymous says:

      “This latest development strongly suggests that Trump looks to Putin as a buddy even ‘after’ the invasion of Ukraine!”

      Would it surprise ANYBODY that Trump Tower in Moscow might again be in negotiation? And do you think for a moment that Trump would suspend this project on account of Putin’s invasion?

      Would anyone go out on a limb and dare say, “Gee, that doesn’t sound like something that Trump would do!”

      1. Jeff, once again, you fumble the ball. What is being shown is that Putin partly controls Biden. Take note that neither when VP nor President did Biden give Ukraine significant arms to defend itself. When Putin was amassing on the border of Ukraine, Biden watched, doing nothing except perhaps opening the door for Putin. I can’t remember the exact quote, but it was something like We won’t need to act because Putin isn’t attacking Ukraine, and if he does, he will only be going for a small piece of the country.

        Jeff, you have shown yourself for what you are. A know-nothing who knowingly or unknowingly acts in favor of America’s enemies.

    2. Anonymous, i went to your link. It looks like a video of Trump asking Putin for help but when you try to play the video it takes you to an add. Just remember. Politico said that the Dossier was true and that the laptop wasn’t Hunter’s laptop. Maybe something other than a discredited new source would be more believable.

    3. Do you know how to prove Anonymous the Stupid is a liar?

      Refer to https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/31/res-ipsa-hits-57000000/comment-page-1/#comment-2170980

      That is where Anonymous the Stupid presented the same idea and was destroyed.

      Not all writers are honest. The writer and ATS are both of the same ilks. Change words, change context and don’t even provide a good video.

      In summary of the above post and correct video, This was an interview where TTrump was replying to questions. He didn’t ask Putin for any help. Trump was a thorn in Putin’s attempts to expand, and that is why Russia expanded into Ukraine under Biden, NOT under Trump. Expansions occurred under Biden/Obama and then Biden/Harris.

      Trump was talking about Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina, then the wife of Moscow’s mayor. The question of why she gave Hunter’s company $3.5 million came up. Trump responds.

      “She gave him $3.5 million so now I would think Putin would know the answer to that. I think he should release it, I think we should know that answer.” __Trump

      Translation: Biden might be a stooge for Putin because Putin has the goods on Biden. The Burisma affair also had to do with Russia since Russia had involvement in Burisma. Russia and China have a lot on Biden, so they can use what they have on him and his family to push Biden in one direction. Biden is a security risk. Think of how Biden has reacted to Russia’s invasion. He has used words, but has he permitted or slowed armaments to Ukraine? Biden has slowed them. He is under the influence of Putin. How much is unknown.

      We can say Biden is the cause of the Ukraine war. He subsidizes Putin’s cash flow by causing oil prices to rise. He has shown tremendous weakness in Afghanistan, and his corrupt affairs are known to Putin.

  2. “The text message greatly strengthens the case by undermining the argument that Sussmann’s concealment of the role of the Clinton Campaign was a single mistake or “one-off” occurrence. This could be used to show intent as part of a pattern of deceit.

    Notably, the filings state that

    “The defendant’s billing records reflect that the defendant repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In compiling and disseminating these allegations, the defendant and Tech Executive-1 also had met and communicated with another law partner at Law Firm-1 who was then serving as General Counsel to the Clinton Campaign (“Campaign Lawyer-1″).”
    *********************************************

    The truth is … these are not very bright guys … Follow the money….”

    1. I’m thinking RICO! Has it been repealed? This seems like a perfect way to rid the country of the DNC cabal once and for all!

  3. The Democratic party should apply to change it’s name to The Snake Pit Party. When The Washington Post has launched an investigation of your activities you better know your in trouble. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-china-laptop/. Occurrences in the last two weeks. 1. Hillary and the Democratic Party fined. 2. Democratic lawyer Sussman indicted. 3. Hunter laptop found to be authentic by the MSM. 4, Steele Dossier funded by the Democratic Party. 5. Joe Biden meets with Burisma owner. 6. China connection documented. Now the rats are scuttling to leave the sinking ship. To late rats. To late to learn how to swim. I

    1. Of course that was also the belief of the French nobility just before 1789. The peasants can only take so much.

  4. SPECIAL COUNSEL JOHN DURHAM, MOST CERTAINLY, HAS MILES TO GO BEFORE HE SLEEPS
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening

    Whose woods these are I think I know.
    His house is in the village though;
    He will not see me stopping here
    To watch his woods fill up with snow.

    My little horse must think it queer
    To stop without a farmhouse near
    Between the woods and frozen lake
    The darkest evening of the year.

    He gives his harness bells a shake
    To ask if there is some mistake.
    The only other sound’s the sweep
    Of easy wind and downy flake.

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.

    – Robert Frost

  5. CONSPIRACY
    ___________

    “Durham Hints at a Conspiracy Involving Agents of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign to Harm Trump [United States] with Russia Collusion Hoax”

    “A new filing by special prosecutor John Durham hints at a conspiracy involving agents of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in order to harm Trump’s campaign and presidency with the Russia collusion hoax.”

    – Cristina Laila

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/durham-hints-conspiracy-involving-agents-hillary-clintons-campaign-harm-trump-russia-collusion-hoax/
    ____________

    18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

    If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    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, George Soros, John McCain,

    Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,

    Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,

    Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney et al.

  6. Given that Sussman’s lawyers moved for a bill of particulars months ago, it’s striking that this is the first time that Durham has actually produced a statement. I’m curious to see how Sussmann’s lawyers respond.

    Also striking that in discussing the case, Turley writes that “Sussmann has been seeking the dismissal on the single charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for lying to the FBI in a meeting with the then-FBI General Counsel James Baker,” but is silent about the argument Sussmann’s lawyers are presenting about lack of materiality. Turley often notes his experience as a defense lawyer, but clearly isn’t taking that perspective here.

    I’m wonder how Judge Cooper will respond to the various motions.

    1. Anonymous says:

      “Turley often notes his experience as a defense lawyer, but clearly isn’t taking that perspective here.”

      There is alot at stake here- nothing less than the overall credibility of Fox News vs the MSM. The MSM has put forth the findings and convictions of the Mueller report as the prevailing historical narrative whereas Fox News has dismissed the investigation as a “witch-hunt” predicated upon an FBI “hoax.”Fox News is hoping that Durham will somehow prove its narrative. It thus stands to reason that Turley, on behalf of his employer, would advocate that Durham is making a good case short of outright lying that Mueller acted in bad faith and there existed a “Deep State” coup attempt- both of which Trumpists believe.

      The best evidence, however, which history will rely upon to decide which competing narrative ultimately was valid, is who among the Trumpists or the NeverTrumpers gets convicted of crimes. For, in the final analysis, impartial juries in courts of law will determine the facts, not advocacy journalists in the court of public opinion.

      1. As I said, I’m curious to see the response from Sussmann’s lawyers.

        As a legal issue, Sussmann’s lawyers submitted a motion of a Bill of Particulars back in October, and this text message was not produced in response. Also, Sussmann was charged as follows:
        “On or about September 19, 2016, within the District of Columbia, MICHAEL A. SUSSMANN, the defendant, did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit, on or about September 19, 2016, the defendant stated to the General Counsel of the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations concerning a Presidential candidate, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, he was acting on behalf of specific clients, namely, Tech Executive-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”

        While the September 18th text message is relevant to the charge, it cannot substantiate what Sussmann said to Baker on September 19th.

        AFAIK, Sussmann has already testified that he was working on behalf of a single client in this meeting (in one of their motions, for ex., Sussmann’s lawyers said “Mr. Sussmann has consistently maintained—including in testimony under oath—that he met with Mr. Baker on behalf of a cyber expert client,” perhaps referring to testimony before the HPSCI, where Sussmann said that the meeting “was done on behalf of my client,” singular), so if Sussmann was *also* working on behalf of Clinton in this meeting with Mr. Baker, then it’s strange that Durham hasn’t also charged Sussmann with making a materially false statement to the HPSCI.

        If only Turley wanted to dig in on the details relevant to proving or disproving the actual case.

        1. Frankly, I can’t devote the time necessary to delve deeply into the facts. I rather admit honestly that I don’t have an opinion rather than shoot my mouth off without studying all the evidence. Too many people are prone to do the latter and not the former. I appreciate, however, your time and effort in analyzing the allegations, but I am content to sit tight and let the judicial process work it’s way through because I have faith in the system.

          The trouble with Trumpists is that they don’t have faith in our system of justice. Rather, they believe it is rigged if it goes against them. I accept trial outcomes (with the caveat that they are subject to appeal).

          I don’t believe as many do that good people can do no wrong and bad people can do no right. Like Turley, I believe that justice is blind unlike Trump and his followers who reserve the right to question a verdict until they examine the ethnicity or the political persuasion of a judge.

          This growing distrust in our system is what prompted Turley to declare:

          “All the images of protesters scaling the walls of the Capitol and briefly occupying Congress will remain seared in our collective memories for decades. Some called it a riot. Others called it an insurrection. Whatever you call it, it was a desecration. The rioters desecrated the most sacred moment of our constitutional system when the nation comes together to certify our next president. That is why it is too easy to treat this like an insurrection crisis. It is far more dangerous. It is a crisis of faith.”

          https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/533084-a-desecration-of-our-democracy/

          Trump’s calls of “hoax,” “Deep State,” etc., only fueled this crisis.

          1. In his statement Trump is indicting Putin along with Hunter Biden. He is saying that Putin knows all about it. Putin knows what all of the oligarchs in Russia are doing and he knows about the 3.5 million dollars that went to Hunter Bidens’ business account. Again Trump was right. He knows that Putin knows, Hunter also knows what Putin knows and Papa Joe knows what Putin knows. Trump also knows that Putin might release what he knows at the right time if the Biden boys don’t stay in line. Playin em like a fish on a line.

            1. TiT,

              You had better be 100% correct in your assertions; otherwise, we will accuse you of lying and perpetuating a hoax.

          2. You are such a pathetic Democrat troll. Since the night of the election and continuously since, HRC has lied stating specifically that Trump and Putin stole the election from her. Yet you, a TDS victim, point out 24/7 only the lies and obfuscations of Trump which are of course legion (I am happy to admit he is absolutely unfit for any elected office.)

            What about HRC and the Dems’ lies Re. the 2016 election?

            1. TDS? You mean “Turley Derangement Syndrome,” “Tucker Derangement Syndrome,” or “Trump Derangement Syndrome”?

              I’ve been accused of all three. Please be more specific. Thanking you in advance!

          3. “Frankly, I can’t devote the time necessary to delve deeply into the facts.”

            Jeff can’t devote the time because he is sitting on his a$$ day and night insulting Turley.

            He denies the existence of FBI malfeasance, especially where politics is involved. To him, FISA abuse is meaningless.

        2. Anonymous,

          “ AFAIK, Sussmann has already testified that he was working on behalf of a single client in this meeting (in one of their motions, for ex., Sussmann’s lawyers said “Mr. Sussmann has consistently maintained—including in testimony under oath—that he met with Mr. Baker on behalf of a cyber expert client,” perhaps referring to testimony before the HPSCI, where Sussmann said that the meeting “was done on behalf of my client,” singular), so if Sussmann was *also* working on behalf of Clinton in this meeting with Mr. Baker, then it’s strange that Durham hasn’t also charged Sussmann with making a materially false statement to the HPSCI.”

          Turley isn’t providing details because the details contradict Turley’s spin on this narrative Durham is trying to create.

          The notes submitted by Durham support Sussman’s claim and it seems Durham altered evidence to make Sussmann’s statement materially relevant.

          Marcy Wheeler provides a more comprehensive look at Durham’s deceit with the dates.

          https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/04/05/john-durham-is-hiding-evidence-of-altered-notes/

          1. Yes, I’d read that column, and other things she’s written about the case. She noted in another column this morning that the text message is “damning,” but also that Durham would have to file a superseding indictment for it, since the current false statements charge against Sussmann is for a statement that Sussmann made to Baker on 9/19, and this text is from 9/18.

            1. Anonymous proper,

              “ Yes, I’d read that column, and other things she’s written about the case. She noted in another column this morning that the text message is “damning,” but also that Durham would have to file a superseding indictment for it, since the current false statements charge against Sussmann is for a statement that Sussmann made to Baker on 9/19, and this text is from 9/18.”

              It seems Durham has a big problem with this charge. According to Wheeler the statute of limitations to charge Sussman ran out on September 18. To supersede he can’t use the date Sussman allegedly made the statement. That would explain the date changes (allegedly) made by Durham that Wheeler mentions in another column.

          2. I demonstrated that Marcy Wheeler writes convoluted columns to promote illogical leftist thinking in other responses. Everyone should look at this column and get dizzy trying to follow it. If one gets through the maze, one finds she has told everyone very little, and that little is likely to be false.

            If she knew what she was talking about or if she wasn’t spinning, one wouldn’t see such a mishmash.

            1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

              “ I demonstrated that Marcy Wheeler writes convoluted columns to promote illogical leftist thinking in other responses. Everyone should look at this column and get dizzy trying to follow it. If one gets through the maze, one finds she has told everyone very little, and that little is likely to be false.”

              No, you demonstrated that you can’t understand the complexity of the case before you. It looks “convoluted” because it is very detailed in its analysis. Wheeler has told a lot more with a much deeper look at what Durham is doing. She uses the actual evidence available. Turley is much less sophisticated in the analysis of the Durham investigation.

              1. If you think you are so bright, copy her report and while doing so tell us what she is saying. She is making something super complicated to confuse not very bright people. In your case, she succeeded.

                1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

                  “ If you think you are so bright, copy her report and while doing so tell us what she is saying. She is making something super complicated to confuse not very bright people. In your case, she succeeded.”

                  I already posted excerpts from her analysis AND stated what I believe she said.

                  She’s not making it “super complicated” she’s explaining the facts as they are presented by the evidence. The reason it’s too complicated for YOU is that it requires real reading comprehension skills. You’re still welcome to try to understand but I doubt it.

    2. Silent as to lack of materiality argument? Hardly:

      “ Sussmann has sounded a lot like Michael Flynn in court as he argued that this was trivial and inconsequential comment. ” including link to detailed discussion Turley wrote previously.

      1. Turley didn’t provide a “detailed” discussion of the materiality argument there either.

    3. Anonymous, Turley is being either sloppy or disingenuous with the facts. Marcy Wheeler points out that Durham may be altering documents again as he did with the Michael Flynn case.

      https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/04/05/john-durham-is-hiding-evidence-of-altered-notes/

      The phrase no specific client is apparently from a different meeting.

      “ Ms. Anderson’s notes (the “Anderson Notes”) include, on top, “Deputies Mtg. 9/19/16,” and then, after a redaction and under a second heading reading “9/19[/]16,” go on to state: “Sussman[n] Mtg w/ Baker” and “No specific client but group of cyber academics talked w/ him abt research,” followed by the phrase, “article this Friday – NYT/WaPo/WSJ.” Anderson Notes at SCO-3500U-000018. The relevant sentence fragment contains no subject revealing who had “[n]o specific client,” nor any other context for that phrase. Ms. Anderson, who was first asked about these notes by the Special Counsel over five years after they were written, has no meaningful memory of the notes or their context: she has only a “vague recollection” of discussing this topic with Mr. Baker and cannot “recall specifics.” Mem. of Special Counsel’s Jan. 5, 2022 Interview of T. Anderson, SCO-3500U-000087, at -88, -96. When shown the notes, Ms. Anderson stated that she had been “surprised” to learn about the “no specific client” phrase, and she “d[id] not now recall hearing from Baker his use” of that phrase; she could only assume that she got that phrase from Mr. Baker “because her notes reflect[ed] it.” Id. at -88.”

      Durham has only provided a partial scan of theses notes, hiding that the date, 9/19/16, appears earlier on the page, describing a different kind of meeting. That’s consistent with what the added date and the redaction on the McCabe notes did: It served to suggest that McCabe briefed the Flynn case to SSCI the day after Jim Comey was fired. Here, the September 19 date that appears next to the sticky is necessary for Durham’s case to claim that Anderson took these notes the same day of the meeting and not some time after that.“

  7. Sadly, these fascist Democrats exist in a country that respects the laws that the Democrats don’t themselves respect. And supported by a propagandist un-free press, they get away with criminal and unethical behavior. Any one with half a brain knew early in 2017 that the unethical HRC/DNC/OBH/Democrats had cheated, maligned, and smeared the new administration based on absurd lies. ANd they lied and lied and lied…. as did the NYT, WaPo, almost all Democrat Congresspersons, Leslie Stahl, Brennan, Clapper, Comey. But their ignominy is hidden from the American public, who are now the most uneducated, mind- controlled population ever.

    1. highlyeducatedsuburbanwoman is the Blog Stooge using ‘fascism’ so casually it means nothing at all.

      1. Anonymous, you seem to have a problem with women, care to discuss it.

        Anonymous is the kind of person that finds a site run by someone he hates and then goes there to comment 100 times a day…does this seem to be a mental issue to any besides me? I wouldn’t go to the Joy Reid blog and comment once, let alone 100 times a day. I wouldn’t go to the Lawrence O’Donnell blog and comment and I wouldn’t go to MSNBC or CNN for more than a minute because they are beyond the Overton Window vis a vis politics, race, crime or the border. I DON’T DEMAND THAT THEY BE BANNED (AS GIGI SOHN, THE BIDEN NOMINEE FOR HEAD OF THE FCC DOES WITH REGARD TO FOX0, I DON’T BOYCOTT THEIR SPONSORS, I JUST CHANGE THE FREAKIN’ CHANNEL. But guys like Anonymous want to crush “our” site by commenting 100 times a day and in essence try to use the “heckler’s veto) to ruin or shut down the comments section.

        It is fine to have a different perspective about an issue or to disagree about a political or legal point being made but people, mostly guys, like Anonymous, Jeffsilberman and Natacha seem to have what I call “contrarian disease”, a malady that makes little people disagree with everything in order to seem larger or to seem to have gravitas when in reality it just highlights a personality that will never be normal and will never be “one of the crowd”. The three people I mentioned never have a drink at the local pub with their pals, never go on dates or have a spouse and never have any real friends and it is all because they have to disagree about everything. THEY ARE WEIRDOS.

        1. Bobby says:

          “It is fine to have a different perspective about an issue or to disagree about a political or legal point being made but people, mostly guys, like Anonymous, Jeffsilberman and Natacha seem to have what I call “contrarian disease”, a malady that makes little people disagree with everything in order to seem larger or to seem to have gravitas when in reality it just highlights a personality that will never be normal and will never be “one of the crowd”.

          I agree with Turley more than I disagree. My problem is his NOT applying the SAME criticism WITH WHICH I AGREE to Fox News, Newsmax or One America Network. No one has denied Turley gives these networks a pass. Instead, I am excoriated as suffering from Turley Derangement Syndrome. Now, you propose I suffer from an altogether different disease: “contrarianism.”

          I am a nobody; I have no gravitas. I confess that I am not “one of the crowd.” Are we clear? I simply state my opinion, like it or not, just as you do. In that we are one and the same.

          Fact is, you will miss Natacha, Anonymous and me when we leave because then there will be less people with whom you will have the pleasure to argue.

          1. El Jeff writes: ” am a nobody; … I simply state my opinion,

            You are a nobody and a propaganda vehicle at the same time. Shall we add Anti-American, and a supporter of those who caused the Ukraine war?

      2. @8:01
        You agree with the content of the post. That surprises me. I mean you provide no counter information. Or even make a claim is not factual.

  8. People always crying about Durham not moving fast enough…. People also don’t understand what and who he is up against. It has to be done right. These people have the best lawyers in the world and can weasel their way out of a lot of things. This is a great example of the methodical nature of Durham. He’s got them.

  9. A little too early in the blog but the Actblue crew will be arriving soon in their new Whatsboutism EV.

  10. Reminds me of an old Doonesbury cartoon from the Watergate era, with Mark Baker on the radio.reminding people that everyone should have due process but that this one person (John Mitchell?) was “That’s guilty. Guilty, guilty, guilty!”

    Or maybe not – it was a very long time ago

      1. I thought it was, bit could be mistaken. A long time ago – there were weird things going on. Used to have the book, but took it to Half Price books a couple years back

  11. Most who seek the truth really just want to see hillary and the big guy behind bars for the remainder. These smaller fish are meant to appease us but it’s not really good enough, now is it?

    1. Alma,

      “Lock her Up, lock her up.”

      Just the female Trumpists.

      Now the men.

      Now altogether, “Lock her up, lock her up.”

      Mob Justice…

      1. IF…IF we could find just enough honest, impartial and honorable people to conduct a fair investigation of those 2 that would prove to those ardent leftists that they deserve such punishment then why not lock her up. As long as the left can hide behind the rubric of feigned innocence for lack of judicial trial they will remain untouchable and will remain the rallying cry to those whose see the obvious pattern of events and behavior and are just waiting for the exposure of facts. (and I suppose you condone BLM and Antifa type mob justice?

        1. No, I don’t condone mob justice which is why I deplore Trumpists shouting “lock her up” in a crazed frenzy before an indictment, prosecution and conviction.

  12. Meh, this is a “process crime.” At least, that’s what Trumpists claimed in order to dismiss Flynn’s admitted criminal lying to the FBI.

    What goes around, comes around. Remember that next time.

      1. Mistressadams says:

        “Trumpists, eh? Has no one ever told you that your antipathy for persons making an argument doesn’t invalidate the argument?”

        Trumpists = “followers of Trump.”

        Nothing more.

        Apparently, YOU think believing as Trump does IS disparaging. I can understand that.

    1. Silberman: Flynn’s lie did not result in four years of tumult throughout an entire administration and everything else that went with it. Nice try though.

      1. Randy P,

        “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

        Durham’s witch-hunt” is going after Sussman for a “victimless process crime.”

        Hannity said so. Why can’t I?

        Like I said, Trumpists should not be surprised that the lies they told to discredit Mueller will not be used against them. To his everlasting credit, however, Turley never talked like a Trumpist because he is a NOT a liar.

        1. Come on Jeff, you are smarter than this. Going to the FBI to deliberately tell a lie (what Sussmann did) is not a victimless process crime. Not remembering the details of a call or remembering the details somewhat wrong is a process crime and it was victimless because the content of the call was already known. Apples and oranges. Sussmann’s lie was not only deliberate, it created victims: Trump who not only was smeared but also hindered in the execution of his role; the taxpayer funding the needless FBI investigation.

          1. Dutch,

            Nope. It’s a “process crime.”

            The only way Trumpists are going to learn not to lie in the future is to give them a taste of their own medicine. Reasoning with them with good speech and shaming them for their lies hasn’t worked.

            1. Mespo, what you just said needs to be put in big letters and bold print, while being posted repeatedly. The Jeff Silberman’s of the world are either Stupid or evil. There seems to be no in-between

          2. Stop feeding the retard. It’s the attention he craves not fact, not honest discussion. The Retard has a goal, repeated often, Ruin the good Prof’s blog. Feeding the retard aides in the sick goal.

    2. Personally, I don’t like smear campaigns. Clinton’s in re the 2016 elections was one of history’s worst: claiming that your opponent is colluding with an unfriendly state to rig the election. Close to calling him a traitor. Continuing this, now proven lie, after the election is an effort to undermine the government and presidency. Obama knew it was a lie. He could have simply stopped it by making a statement that the election was over and the allegations untrue. But although he proclaims to be so very ethical, he did not. Speaking of peaceful transition of government: keeping the lie alive was not.
      As to Flynn, the situation is not the same and hardly similar. Flynn, indeed, confessed, but only after he was nearly bankrupted, and the FBI threatened to go after his son (unethical pressure which should be prohibited). A confession under such pressure should be disregarded. Moreover, Flynn did not go to the FBI to tell a lie, the FBI came to him to ask about a telephone conversation with the Russian ambassador which he legitimate in making. Although Flynn did not remember the conversation correctly, the agents did not believe according to their own report that Flynn was deliberately lying. Sussmann, on the contrary, took the initiative to contact the FBI with the clear purpose of launching a lie to hurt Hillary’s opponent and he lied about his connection to that campaign and that the campaign was his source, to not have the narrative lose credibility upfront. Knowing that source of the story was important, i.e., material, because that would have made the FBI suspicious as to its reliability. Flynn’s ‘lie’ was not because the FBI already knew the content of his conversation as they had listened in (another issue that needs to be addressed: the FBI eavesdropping on a president’s inner circle).

      1. Dutch,

        I am not inclined to go through each and every misstatement you have made. Let the lawyers fight it out in court with the judge and before a jury. If Sussman is convicted, Biden may pardon him though Trumpists- unlike me- will NOT be able to denounce Biden for doing so because they were positively giddy when Trump pardoned Flynn despite the fact that he had admitted his guilt in open court.

        Please spare me your liberal bleeding heart dismay that Flynn was bankrupted and his son threatened with prosecution:

        A) Flynn could have admitted his guilt early on and spared his bank account; he decided to waste his funds;

        B) If his son had committed a crime, Flynn should be grateful that the DOJ was willing to spare his son in exchange for not having to go to the expense of proving Flynn’s guilt at trial.

        1. “I am not inclined to go through each and every misstatement you have made.”

          Jeff, you won’t because you are too dumb or a liar. You have proven this each time by attacking, and when called, you disappear like you are doing with Dutch. People of your nature are a disgrace to the cowards they hang out with.

          Double Dutch, continue to demonstrate Jeff’s human failure by merely stating the truth.

          Any decent person recognizes that Flynn was abysmally treated and that the FBI essentially lied. Problems with the FBI have been ongoing. We even saw that with the FBI lying to the FISA court. Was that corrected? No. it didn’t serve the purposes of Democrats and quite a few Republicans,

        2. No misstatements here, Jeff. And you know, otherwise you would have happily pointed them all out.
          As to your 2 conclusions:
          A) If you get falsely accused, your advice is to just confess to save money. The FBI agents who interviewed him did not believe he lied. A lie is a deliberate statement of something that is not true. Flynn told them how he remembered it.
          B) You’re missing the point, deliberately, I guess. I don’t know whether his son had committed a crime. Point is that the FBI uses a threat against someone’s children to coerce a confession.

          1. The FBI agents who interviewed him initially did not believe he lied, but after reviewing additional evidence, including his text messages and phone call data, it became clear that he’d lied, and they changed their minds. I bet you’ve never looked at the additional evidence. I bet you would refuse to look at it now. If I’m wrong, just say that you’d look at it, and I’ll give you a link to the exhibits filed with the court.

            As for “I don’t know whether his son had committed a crime. Point is that the FBI uses a threat against someone’s children to coerce a confession,” if his son may have committed a crime, then it’s doing their job — not a threat — for them to investigate.

            1. After political concerns entered the picture it was decided to change the story and say Flynn lied. The above poster seldom gets anything right. I wonder why?

          2. DD,

            It would do no good to correct all your misstatements since we would never agree. Debating with Trumpists is an exercise in futility.

            Prosecutors decide who is allegedly guilty of a crime not FBI agents. Turley raised questions about the tactics of the FBI, but he never claimed that Flynn was falsely accused of a crime by the Feds.

            Prosecutors, not FBI agents, use threats of prosecution against a defendant’s children, spouses and relatives in exchange for guilty pleas ALL THE TIME because the public demands they be tough on crime as well as spare the taxpayer the expense of a trial.

            Flynn’s son should not have avoided prosecution. Flynn should be very grateful that the Feds were willing to spare his son in exchange for his guilty plea. I don’t recall Trumpists voicing their concern when the Feds threatened to prosecute Michael Cohen’s father-in-law to secure his guilty plea….

    3. I hate Flynn but not for reasons most do. I hate him because he worked as an unregistered agent for the murdering scum bag Pres. Erdogan, attempting to convince the US to force a Turk living in the US, a political enemy of Erdogan, to be turned over to Erdogan to be tortured and murdered. What kind of scum bag attempts to get someone tortured and killed for being a political enemy? The Flynn kind.

      You attempt to have the world perceive you as being interested in justice while you simultaneously support Comey: the FBI agents who first questioned Flynn determined he did NOT lie. Then Comey and his crew above those agents disregarded that advice and that is the definition of a witch hunt.

      But again, beyond having NO respect for anyone in the military (unless they have repented of volunteering to join,) IMO the only heroes in war are coward who refuse to fight.

      And my best understanding is that Flynn plead guilty only to save the FBI from destroying his son’s life, repeating what the FBI had just done to Flynn.

      IMO you’re a hypocritical, sanctimonious prick.

  13. Sussman and Elias should thank their lucky stars that they live under the laws of a country which does not use enhanced interrogation techniques to get to the truth.
    Eephus, or John Durham in this matter, is the lawful and societally-acceptable equivalent of those techniques. It’ll take months if not years longer for Durham to get to the truth, but he will.

    1. Rodney Joffe’s is he. Joffe retired last September as senior vice president and security chief technology officer at Neustar Inc., a Reston, Va.-based company that provides various internet-related services and products to more than 8,000 commercial and government clients around the world. He had earlier founded the UltraDNS Corp., the first cloud-based company to develop and market the “domain name” services that translate numerical internet addresses into memorable names that can be typed into a browser, which was bought by Neustar in 2006 for nearly $62 million in cash.

    2. Rodney Joffe. Joffe he retired earlier this month as senior vice president and security chief technology officer at Neustar Inc., a Reston, Va.-based company that provides various internet-related services and products to more than 8,000 commercial and government clients around the world. He earlier founded the UltraDNS Corp., the first cloud-based company to develop and market the “domain name” services that translate numerical internet addresses into memorable names that can be typed into a browser, which was bought by Neustar in 2006 for nearly $62 million in cash.

Leave a Reply