Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn

Judge Christopher Cooper
Judge Emmet Sullivan

Below is my column in The Hill on the Sussmann trial and the striking comparisons with prior prosecutions of Trump officials like Michael Flynn.  The court has limited the evidence available to the prosecution, the scope of questioning, and cleared a jury that includes three Clinton campaign donors. A jury of your peers is not supposed to literal with an array of fellow Clinton supporters. Those negative rulings continued during the trial, including a refusal to dismiss a juror whose daughter is playing on the same team with Sussmann’s daughter.  For John Durham, it may seem that the only person missing from the jury at this point is Chelsea Clinton.

Here is the column:

The criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann began this week with a telling warning from prosecutors to the D.C. jury: “Whatever your political views might be, they cannot be brought to your decisions.” The opening statement by Deborah Brittain Shaw reflected the curious profile of the Sussmann case. Prosecutors ordinarily have a massive advantage with juries despite the presumption of innocence. When pleas are counted, federal prosecutors can report as high as 95 percent conviction rates. However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial.

Sussmann’s trial for allegedly lying to the FBI is being heard in the same District of Columbia federal courthouse where former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others faced the very same charge brought by another special counsel.

The cases, however, could not be more different.

Whereas Flynn’s prosecution was a no-holds-barred affair, Sussmann’s prosecution has been undermined by a series of unfavorable rulings by the court. Special prosecutor John Durham still may be able to eke out a conviction, but the difference in the treatment of Trump and Clinton associates is striking.

Sussmann is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump organization and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts.

Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone – not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments.

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality.

The most notable aspect of the trial is what will be missing: context. Durham contends that Sussmann was no rogue lawyer. After the Mueller investigation, Durham’s team revealed information about how people affiliated with the Clinton campaign allegedly funded, developed and spread the false collusion claim.

On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation was initiated.

This appears to have been an all-Washington effort assisted by key figures associated with a liberal think tank, Democratic members of Congress, and allies in the media. However, it was the role of lawyers like Sussmann that attracted Durham’s interest.

Durham contends that, in addition to allegedly lying to Baker during their meeting, Sussmann sent a text message to Baker the night before the meeting, reading: “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.”

Notably, the campaign’s law firm was accused by some journalists of hiding the campaign’s role in financing the infamous Steele dossier, which provided the basis for the collusion story. (The Federal Election Commission recently fined the campaign for using the firm to hide those payments.) The Durham team argued that Sussmann’s alleged lying to the FBI was not just some passing omission but a knowing pattern of deceit. That is why one of the first witnesses expected to be called by the prosecution was Marc Elias, Sussmann’s former law partner and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Elias is not charged with any crime, but at least one reporter has claimed Elias denied the campaign’s connection to the Steele dossier.

Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”

Without the broader context, the prosecution could sound like a play without a plot — just characters and insular acts. The first witnesses included FBI agents who told the jury that the claims passed along by Sussmann “didn’t make sense” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign.

That is not the only blow delivered to the prosecution by the court. The judge refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm, he barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors.

The treatment given to Sussmann is in stark contrast to how Trump associates were treated in this same court. In the Flynn trial, Judge Cooper’s colleague, Judge Emmet Sullivan, conducted a series of bizarre hearings, including one in which he used the courtroom flag as a prop to accuse Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” and to suggest that Flynn could be charged with treason — crimes not brought against him. Sullivan then declared: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.”

Likewise, another judicial colleague, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, refused to grant Trump associate Roger Stone a new trial despite disturbing reports of juror bias.

While the judge in Flynn’s case was eager to remove obstacles from the prosecution’s path, the judge in Sussmann’s case seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham. Durham may be able to jump the legal hurdles, but he will do so without much of his evidence. To paraphrase Charles Dickens in “A Tale of Two Cities,” for a prosecutor D.C. can be the best of venues or it can be the worst of venues.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

467 thoughts on “Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn”

  1. M4seroski says:

    “Jonathan Turkey Esq. Needs to hire a logician to analyze the formal and informal errors of your arguments.”

    Too many arguments on both sides are logically unsound. For example, the oft-heard argument of the slippery slope is generally fallacious:

    “First we loosen up the laws against abortion. Next, mark my words; we’ll take seriously the option of infanticide in certain severe cases. And this will lead us to look with favor on euthanasia for those we deem social deviants.”

    The problem with this reasoning is that it shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals without proof that such extreme hypotheticals will, in fact, occur. It’s an appeal to emotion by leveraging fear.

    Moreover, things oftentimes differ in degree so much that they differ *in kind.* For instance, we have no problem calling a mostly hairless man “bald” notwithstanding that his hairline differs only in degree with a man with a full head of hair.

    The argument of the slippery slope is fallacious.

    1. Jeff, you can never have proof that a hypothetical will occur. That is what makes those examples hypothetical. And we are witnessing ” slippery slope” on both sides. Because Roe is based on privacy, overturning it has those on the Left hypothesizing that a slippery slope is possible as it refers to gay marriage, birth control etc. I see a slippery slope with all of this gender transformation ” education” on the very young. Mark my words, this will lead to the normalization of pedophilia. There is already a professor at Johns Hopkins, Allyn Walker who was previously dismissed from Old Dominion, who said that referring to people who were sexually attracted to minors should not be referred to as pedophiles. That ” label ” was “stigmatizing”. Instead, he thought it proper to use an acronym. M.A.P. Minor Attracted People .Of course this idiot uses the pronoun ” they”. And HIS book is titled ” A Long Dark Shadow: Minor Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity. Pedophiles HAVE NO DIGNITY!!!
      In my opinion, this is a PERFECT example of a slippery slope.
      Getting warmer here. Already have a restaurant picked out depending on your preferred cuisine.

      1. Paul,

        FWIW, pedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent kids. The term for those who are attracted to kids at the cusp of puberty is “hebephile,” and those attracted to post-pubescent teens (mostly minors, though not exclusively) is “ephebophile.” I don’t know whether there’s a term for someone who is attracted to minors in general, and that may be why Walker is trying to introduce MAP. Or, he may be trying to make a distinction between people who are attracted (but who do not act on their attraction, knowing that it’s illegal) and those who act on it (who are criminals).

        1. Anon.
          Maybe I painted with too broad of brush. The definition of pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children. I take children to be those who have not reached the age of majority. I know that can differ from state to state. My guess is in most cases that is the age of 18.
          And I also agree with there’s no harm if a person who is attracted to a minor does not act out on those urges sexually.
          My point was that trying to ” remove stigmitizing ” those who are attracted to minors, is ridiculous. Another insane attempt at not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings. The mere fact that someone writes a book about the lack of dignity when referring to those adults who are sexuallly to children is ludicrous.
          Pedophiles deserve to have more than their feelings hurt.

      2. Paul,

        I’m against “slippery slope” arguments on both sides. It is simply fallacious to argue against some proposal by stating, “It’s a slippery slope.” One thing does not necessarily lead to another! I agree that criminalizing abortion will not necessarily lead to making birth control illegal though Oklahoma is passing a law to that effect. It *does* follow logically if one believes life begins at inception which is an article of religious belief.

        This country is not a theocracy though many Trumpists believe it should be:


      1. Clint, I think before it can be determined if abortion is ” slippery” we must resolve the issue of when life actually begins. I am not totally sure. But if I had a gun to my head I would say when the fetus is viable. Certainly not at conception and not in the third trimester. Probably would follow the European model.
        Pedophilia is to be condemned at ALL points. There is no ” other side” to the argument,.

        1. As to the question of when a viable life begins, given the advances in our knowledge of human genetics, molecular biology, embryology, reproductive medicine, obstetrics and gynecology across the past five decades, I would suggest that the ‘heartbeat’ concept is a threshold upon which reasonable individuals should agree. The point of view from the perspective of the anesthesiologist or the operating ob-gyn tends to lend a certain je ne sais quois to the debate. Of course, one can please some of the people some of the time……..and so on.

            1. Paul,

              There’s a huge difference in time between when embryonic heart cells form and first begin to pulse (which is what the Texas “heartbeat” bill uses, even though the heart itself hasn’t yet formed) and viability. The former is about 1 month into pregnancy (you’ll often see this described as 6 weeks instead, measuring from the woman’s last period), and the latter is about 5-6 months into pregnancy. Some women don’t know that they’re pregnant initially, so in practice, a one-month limit is very little time.

              I can’t even demand that you donate some of your blood to save someone’s life. Why do you find it fair to place such short cut-off (“heartbeat”) before demanding that a woman donate the use of her body for 9 months? Pregnancy has a lot more negative effective and risks than donating blood.

              1. RE:””” There’s a huge difference in time between when embryonic heart cells form”””……….I offer this to you for your edification and pray that, going forward, you will be sure of your facts prior to pontificating. Given the information annexed, the conversation we have enjoined in the matter is confirmed. Hence, the heartbeat rule, at 15 weeks, is reasonable enough time to permit any potential ‘body donor’, as well as a hopefully expectant mother, to act in their best interests. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/when-does-a-fetus-have-a-heartbeat#:~:text=By%20the%2010th%20week%2C%20the,related%20to%20the%20embryo's%20heartbeat.

                1. ZZDoc, thanks for clarifying that you’re not talking about the pulsing of embryonic heart cells, which is what the Texas law uses.

                  But the scientific research doesn’t all align with the claims in your link. For example: “A University of Leeds-led team developing the first comprehensive model of human heart development using observations of living foetal hearts found surprising differences from existing animal models. Although they saw four clearly defined chambers in the foetal heart from the eighth week of pregnancy, they did not find organised muscle tissue until the 20th week, much later than expected. … ‘Foetal hearts in other mammals such as pigs, which we have been using as models, show such an organisation even early in gestation, with a smooth change in cell orientation going through the heart wall. But what we actually found is that such organisation was not detectable in the human foetus before 20 weeks, [Dr Eleftheria Pervolaraki] said. Professor Arun Holden, also from Leeds’ School of Biomedical Sciences, said: ‘The development of the foetal human heart is on a totally different timeline, a slower timeline, from the model that was being used before. This upsets our assumptions and raises new questions. …'”

                  This may be a partial explanation for why viability doesn’t occur until after 20 weeks, and if I’m remembering correctly, ~20 weeks is also significant in the development of brain activity.

                  I’m not sure what you meant by “the conversation we have enjoined in the matter is confirmed.” Was “enjoined” a typo?

                  1. RE:”””Was “enjoined” a typo?””” Likely! In the matter of the science, as you demonstrate, yet remaining open to further discovery, one can argue that 15 weeks remains a safe threshold beyond which the law could give no flexibility. RvW and Casey, carefully read, speak to a narrowing such that, at the third trimester, the state is given an interest to intervene.

                    1. RE:”””Would you have denied this couple an abortion had the woman not had a late miscarriage?””” One cannot nickel and dime this issue. A friend of mine sadly chose an elective termination of pregnancy in that her husband unexpectedly died and she would have been unable to carry the pregnancy to term and raise that child. Pro-life advocates made her experience hell as she tried to find access to care. She regrets, to this day, having been forced to have made that choice. Today she is childless. I personally know of other hardship cases. There will always be scenarios which beg consideration on a case by case basis. The idea is to establish a rational, workable and acceptable baseline which is appropriate for those who need, and assess the exceptions as they come along. The legal argument is that the Constitution reserves this matter to the states, each jurisdiction deciding for itself what its policy its to be. I would object to state laws making it a crime to cross state lines in order to seek that care.

                    2. ZZDoc,

                      I agree that the “The idea is to establish a rational, workable and acceptable baseline which is appropriate for those who need, and assess the exceptions as they come along,” but those exceptions must be written into the law; otherwise.

                      I’d still appreciate your answering my question:
                      Would you have denied this couple an abortion had the woman not had a late miscarriage: https://twitter.com/wtadler/status/1521167627833552899 ?

                      As for “The legal argument is that the Constitution reserves this matter to the states, each jurisdiction deciding for itself what its policy its to be,” that’s one legal argument. A different legal argument is that women have 9th and 14th Amendment rights that states cannot overrule.

                    3. RE:”””I’d still appreciate your answering my question:””” This is a TFMR and I would not have. You should have inferred that from my previous comments when I observed that there are exceptional situations that would fall outside a window established by the current science… As an Ashkenazi Jew I am familiar with the genetic issues pertinent to that ethnic group. As a parent, we were broadly screened some 40 years ago before we contemplated a family. There was a Tay-Sachs birth in our extended family in the late 50’s. I also bring to this conversation, 40 years experience as a clinician who was involved in the care of medically complex and special needs individuals. There is no conversation from him about counseling for inherited carrier screening given their known heritage. The paper you presented for review is dated 12 years ago. Time enough to know to screen for,or at least be aware of that as well as Tay-Sachs among others..I am sympathetic to the their plight.

                  2. This has nothing to do with science.
                    This about the Peoples determination. When do the people deem they have the power to protect human life? The only proper and feasible process is legislation.

                    1. The Constitution doesn’t leave all of people’s rights to legislation.

                    2. RE:”””This has nothing to do with science.This about the Peoples determination. When do the people deem they have the power to protect human life? The only proper and feasible process is legislation.””‘ Thus the 10th Amendment refers to the States to do just that. Each jurisdiction, and the PEOPLE therein, will determine through the legislative process, to what extent that power will be given. The Constitution does not guarantee uniformity among the states for that purpose. That’s Federalism. A foundation upon which this nation’s governing process was built. What I would not support is any legislation which would make it a criminal act to seek a therapeutic termination of pregnancy in a jurisdiction outside of one’s own, if the laws of the state of residence were not conducive to the needs of the mother. Citing Oklahoma as example, I would encourage women of child bearing age and a pro-choice persuasion, to seriously consider leaving such a jurisdiction for one in which the laws will serve them. Let those who are content remain. In time, water will seek its own level, https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortion-ban-hb-4327-passed/index.html

                1. I’m not.

                  You do understand that an embryo/fetus is using the woman’s body, right? You understand that 100% of the time, pregnancy negatively impacts a woman’s health? Why should others demand that a woman sacrifice her health to save the life of an embryo? We don’t demand that people be living organ donors to save people’s lives. We don’t even demand that people do simple things like donate blood.

                  1. You’re really going to make a moral equivalence between donating blood and bearing life – a life that in the vast, vast majority of cases the woman willingly participated in creating and bears responsibility for creating? You’re sicker than I thought. Wow, the left really does need a major attitude and perspective adjustment. You have no concept of basic right and wrong and if not checked – by force, if necessary (increasingly looking likely) – you nutcases will turn this planet into a gigantic ball of ash, well before its natural expiration date. SMDH….

                    1. I’m on the left, but I don’t speak for “the left,” only for myself.

                      Consent to sex is not consent to carrying a pregnancy to term.

                      I’m pointing out that in no other situation do we demand that someone donate the use of any part of their body to save another’s life. People die every day while waiting for donated organs, but it isn’t even legal to require that everyone be a donor when they die.

                      Why do the lives of embryos matter more than everyone else’s lives?
                      Why does a dead person have more bodily autonomy — control over how their body is used — than a pregnant woman?

                    2. Au contraire – a woman’s consent to sex DOES mean consent to carry a progeny to term, because the main, baseline purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. All other purposes are secondary, such as pleasure and social bonding. These might also be healthy, important purposes – but they aren’t the main, baseline purpose.

                      Therefore, when you voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse, you’re accepting responsibility for the results of it, as well. It’s very interesting that you leftists’ tune changes if the man/father doesn’t want to accept the responsibility of his actions and doesn’t want the child, but the woman/mother does. Then he’s on the hook for 18 years of child support, on the pain of imprisonment.

                      The time for women (and irresponsible men) to have their cake and eat it, too is close to being over.

                      The game is close to being up for you sickos on this issue, and you will receive your attitude and perspective adjustments and learn some basic morality and respect for life, as well as the meaning of personal responsibility and how it applies to one’s actions.

                    3. Your personal opinion that “a woman’s consent to sex DOES mean consent to carry a progeny to term, …” is only that: your personal opinion. It’s not a fact, and it does not count for more than anyone else’s personal opinion. You are free to carry your own pregnancies to term (if you’re a woman), but your personal opinion is irrelevant to whether *other* women believe that consent to sex is consent to carrying a pregnancy to term. The pregnant woman’s opinion is the one that matters with respect to her own body, perhaps in consultation with other people of her choosing.

                      “the main, baseline purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation. All other purposes are secondary, such as pleasure and social bonding. These might also be healthy, important purposes – but they aren’t the main, baseline purpose.”

                      Biologically, social bonding is just as important as pregnancy and birth. Were it not for social bonding, child mortality would greatly increase. For the species to continue, enough children must live to reproductive age themselves; giving birth is necessary but not sufficient.

                      Social bonding is so important that humans have sex when a female in her child-bearing years isn’t in estrus, and so important that sex continues after menopause, continues if a woman has had a hysterectomy, continues if she has had her fallopian tubes tied, continues if a man has had a vasectomy, …

                      Our species evolved brains capable of inventing things, and we invented diverse forms of birth control in order to make it easier to have sex without it leading to pregnancy, so that women do not have to be slaves to their uteri.

                      “when you voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse, you’re accepting responsibility for the results of it”

                      This, again, is your personal opinion. Opinions are not facts, and many people have different opinions than you do.

                      It’s my opinion that people like you who want women to be slaves to embryos are the ones who are “sickos.”

                    4. Like I said, you’re a real sicko, and also a not-too-bright sophist. You just keep proving me correct with every “blah blah blah” reply of yours.

                      I’m right, you’re wrong. It’s not my “opinion,” either, it’s a fact. Deal with it, sicko.

                    5. That you cannot accurately tell the difference between opinions and facts is sad. As for your childish name-calling, c’est la vie.

                    6. Consent to sex is not consent to carrying a pregnancy to term.

                      A random selection of words. What laws, or constitutional passage, informs such vapid notion?

                  2. “You do understand that an embryo/fetus is using the woman’s body, right? “

                    What he is really saying is that a fetus is using a woman’s body just like cancer does and it should be cut out.

                    One should worry about this anonymous character.

                    1. Like I’ve said over and over: this person is a sicko. They have a serious mental illness.

                      It’s unfortunate that this person’s mother didn’t adhere to this warped philosophy and refuse to allow them to “use” her body to gestate for 9 months, then raise them to adulthood. The world would be a much better place.

                  3. We don’t even demand that people wear a mask or take a shot to protect other people’s lives. We tried, but were immediately told “it’s my body and I don’t have to do it” with no concern for other’s bodies.

                    1. Laurie, it is time for you to look at the science and deal with logical conclusions. It’s also time that you learned what the discussion is about.

      2. That’s correct. Arguments of the slippery slope are fallacious arguments.

  2. Can we start shouting, “The judge is corrupt! The judge is corrupt!”

    1. Was Earl Warren corrupt?

      That’s a definite no.

      Earl Warren was an honest, criminal, hired gun.

      Hired to frame the patsy, and put a pretty little bow on the whitewash for history.

      The Deep Deep State got exactly what it paid for.

      1. George,

        The PGA is in Tulsa this weekend.

        I don’t know much on some subjects, but I know not to park at Southern Hills Country Club in the spot were Telex’s Roger Wheeler was mur*dered as it’s marked for Mueller. 😉

  3. @Anon,

    The deal is predicated on the belief that the SEC filings are accurate.

    If not… he has room to renegotiate the price.

    1. You have 3 Clinton supporters and 9 Trump supporters on the jury. Not quite unfair to the prosecutor or is it?

    2. The deal is predicated on the specific terms that Musk and Twitter agreed to.

  4. @Bob,

    That wasn’t Musk.
    That was an independent firm.

    Musk did comment saying 10X what Twitter claimed.


  5. Hillary’s campaign manager testified that Hillary agreed to leak the Alpha Bank Trump connection to the press so that the press could vet the veracity of the accusation. Why wait one day for the FBI to vet the accusation when you could leak it to the hard hitting reporters at MSNBC. It’s just a repeat of a tried and true method. Leak the story to the FBI then leak the story to the press so that it can be said that the FBI has opened an investigation. The exact same method of operation was used to bring the Russian pee tape that did not exist to the nation. It almost worked in 2016 so why not give it another try in 2020. Just like Harry Reid said, “We won didn’t we?” https://www.nationalreview.com/news/hillary-clinton-agreed-to-leak-trump-alfa-bank-allegation-to-media-ex-campaign-manager-testifies/

  6. Sussmann handed over two thumb drives to James Baker. In new testimony by the FBI agent who was in charge of the Alpha Bank investigation the agent said that he was frustrated because he couldn’t establish a chain of custody for the thumb drives. In other words, he was conducting an investigation and James Baker never informed him that the source of the information was the attorney representing the Hillary campaign. The FBI tasked an agent to investigate theTrump Alpha Bank connection and then the head of the FBI legal team withheld key information important to the investigation. Even with this stonewalling by Baker the agent concluded that the accusations were bogus in less than one day. For how long did the Democratic Socialist media keep the story alive. There was once a nation where the media, big business, the military, the nations police force, the intelligence agencies, the courts and the government worked hand in hand to gain control of the nation. I don’t have to tell you what nation it was. A famous man once said, “You need to fight like hell.”

    1. Sussmann handed over two thumb drives to James Baker.

      How did Sussmann come to own those thumb drives/information?

      We know Sussmann is clear he was NOT there representing any person. How did he get it?

      1. No, Sussmann has testified that he was representing Joffe. Sussmann was there on Joffe’s behalf in the sense of “representing,” but not there on Joffe’s behalf in the sense of “seeking a benefit for.”

        1. Not buying it.

          What does Sussmann charge $500 to $800 per hour.

          If Joffe wanted the FBI brought in, Sussmann could have done a call on his behalf. And I doubt he would have done that gratis.

        2. Sussmann was there on Joffe’s behalf in the sense of “representing,” but not there on Joffe’s behalf in the sense of “seeking a benefit for.”

          So Sussman doesn’t know what he is looking at, Joffe tells him what it means, and tells Sussman to go to the FBI, Because Joffe has discovered a crime. When did the FBI interview Joffe, and where are the 302’s

          But Joffe is the one sounding the alarm, and Sussman, while he is being represented by legal counsel Sussman. Sussman was not representing Joffe during the meeting with the FBI, even though he is doing so at the request of Joffe, using the work product of Joffe.

            1. So all the communication between Joffe, and Sussmann are discoverable.

              1. Not sure why you believe that, when you could read the judge’s rulings.

                You seem to have some serious misunderstandings of the case. I’m guessing that you’ve never read most of the docket documents.

      2. Iowan2, good point. The Clinton campaign said that they hired some computer forensic experts to give the Alpha Bank conspiracy theory credibility. This is where the two thumb drives came from. In less than one day of investigation the FBI found that the Trump Alpha Bank connection was a bunch of leftist propaganda. If any company out there is looking for a computer forensic experts they should find out who the experts were who worked for the Clintonistas and immediately mark them off their list. It would have been nice to have a couple of forensic experts from the FBI look at Hillary’s secret server. Excuse me if I delve into some wishful thinking.

  7. Elon Musk just released that nearly 50% of Joe Bidens twitter followers are not real. They’re imaginary, just like Joe’s mind.

      1. So Robby Mook has just testified that the Clinton campaign approved providing the Alfa Bank story to reporters but, to his knowledge, not to the FBI.

        Think about that for a minute. If the campaign believed the story, it was evidence of potentially grave criminal wrongdoing by Donald Trump. Publicising this might make it more difficult for law enforcement authorities to pursue a case, for a whole host of reasons. The proper course would have been to alert the FBI and make all information, and the people who discovered the horrible plot, promptly available, and to keep it secret while the FBI uncovered the truth.

        What they in fact did, and what Sussman did on their behalf, only makes sense if they did not believe the story. All they cared about was dirtying up Trump ahead of the election to damage his campaign and distract from their own troubles.

        1. Daniel,

          If we look at this in the abstract, I can see your point. However, when viewed from the perspective of what this group was doing with Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, and the dossier mess, it’s more likely that they had their own doubts about the Alpha Bank stuff being more than spam traffic through a server. Giving it to the media was OK as this is constitutionally-protected oppo-research aka “dirty tricks.” Bringing in the government, though, crosses the line. Now, the question is, was the FBI brought in to bolster the credibility of the info when “leaked” to friendly reporters like Eric Lichtblau of the NY Times? Durham may need to call Lichtblau who, it has been reported, expressed doubt about the original story. That doubt might have induced Sussmann to enlist the FBI’s help in bolstering the story. But, frankly, all this is extraneous to the Sussmann case and by Mook and Elias saying they (and Hillary) were unaware that Sussmann brought the Alpha Bank info to the FBI might be enough to show that Sussmann did not lie when he told Baker he was coming to see him on his own. Thus far, all we have to the contrary are billing records but we do not know just how specific or exact they may be in a complex lawyer-client relationship. Durham needs a smoking gun witness and soon.

          1. The billing records are pretty compelling. It is hard to say that you weren’t acting for a client at a meeting and then billing that same client for the time spent at that meeting. There may also be time billed for preparation and follow-up.

            I think the harder thing to prove will be materiality. Given that the FBI concluded very quickly that the information showed nothing, how could the knowledge that Sussman was acting for the campaign have had a material impact on the investigation? Imagine that he had come in to Baker saying he was representing the campaign and had discovered this in the course of opposition research, and that he is unsure of its validity. The FBI would still have investigated and would still have found nothing. What might they have done differently? Even with the low standard of materiality in this kind of case, I think it’s a tough one.

            1. Daniel,

              I haven’t seen any billing records showing that Sussmann billed the Clinton Campaign for Sussman’s 9/19/2016 meeting with Baker, only Sussmann billing HFA for other work on other dates. What document of Durham’s do you think shows the 9/19/2016 meeting being billed to HFA? (Here’s the entire docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/ )

              Judge Cooper said that he’d postpone ruling on materiality until after Durham presented his evidence for materiality in the trial: “while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law, the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial.” (Doc. 67)

            2. how could the knowledge that Sussman was acting for the campaign have had a material impact on the investigation?

              When you answer that question, please explain it to Gen. Flynn

              1. In the Flynn case materiality was even harder to prove, because the FBI already had the transcript of the conversation about which the Special Counsel much later claimed Flynn had lied. Since they already knew what he had said I don’t see how his statements to them about what they already knew could have affected their conduct of the investigation.

            3. Thank you, Daniel, for the reply. I disagree on the issue of billing records. I’m billed each month for the electricity I use but the power company isn’t responsible for how I use it. It’s a strange analogy, I admit, but my point is Sussmann cannot impale his client by billing them for things they know nothing about. We’ve already heard from two witnesses, Mook and Elias, who said they had no knowledge that Sussmann was going to the FBI with this material. Mook added that Hillary Clinton also didn’t know. That goes to supporting his statement that he was acting alone. That he then submitted a bill to his client for that time in no way inculpates the client in what he did. There may be other evidence besides the billing records and if there is, I’m sure we’ll hear about them next week. For now, though, absent something more dispositive than billing records, Sussmann appears not to have lied to Baker when he said he was acting on his own. Remember, that’s the only issue. All these other things are interesting and perhaps suitable for another indictment on another day, but for now the government must prove that Sussmann lied to Baker when he said he was not acting on behalf of a client. The government’s proof of that is shaky at the moment. Perhaps Durham has more than billing records – emails, text messages or letters that may show otherwise but for now, the two witnesses, Mook and Elias, did not help the government’s case.

              1. The issue is whether Sussman lied when he told Baker he was not acting for a client. It is compelling evidence that he lied when he billed a client for that work. Whether it can be proved that the Clinton campaign knew he met the FBI on their behalf is irrelevant. Personally, I think it inconceivable that they did not know but there may be no evidence of that. What matters is what Sussman believed; since he billed the campaign it is a good inference that he believed he was acting for it. When he told Baker he was not acting for a client he said something contrary to what he believed. I think it fair to call that a lie.

                1. Daniel,
                  I don’t mean to be argumentative, but the billing record was prepared by Sussmann. not by anyone else. We don’t even know if it was prepared before or after the visit to the FBI. It’s likely that he billed the campaign AFTER his visit to Baker, which would make his statement true when he said it. I know that the billing records are a bright star for most people but they are not the smoking gun needed to convict. Chances are if you got into the details of this issue, you would find that Sussmann was working under a general contract and the bill was paid by an accountant in the campaign who may or may not have even read the hourly increments and what they were for. I believe Durham is too smart to rely on a billing record to make his case and must have either a witness in the wings ready and willing to put it all together for him or some internal reports that detail the strategy to plant media stories and use the FBI in the process. I know you and others want to hang their hat on those billing records but believe me, they may not be that persuasive, especially if they were made after the visit and the substance of the visit was not expressly described. Remember, as bad as this plot appears to have been, very little of it was actually illegal unless the folks in charge used the government in any way to promote it while knowing what they were peddling was false. I think they crossed the line from political dirty tricks, aka oppo-research, and criminal conduct but believing that and having the evidence of that are two very different things. The media are making it look as though Durham had a big day getting Mook to implicate Hillary but the evidence did not implicate her in a crime only in a dirty trick, i.e., feed the media false material. That is not a crime. People mislead the media everyday in thousands of ways. It’s only a crime if you misuse the government, file false reports with law enforcement agencies like the FBI, and otherwise lie to government agents. Today’s testimony added nothing of the kind but did bolster the claim that Sussmann acted alone when he visited the FBI – which is precisely what he told Baker and for which he was indicted. If Durham cannot rebut this with hard evidence, it’s over and Sussmann walks out a free man. Believe me, I don’t like it any more than you but we live in a system of laws and have to adhere to the rule of law.

                  1. Narayan. You got it exactly right. This is why Durham is relying on pushing his own conspiracy theory about the source of the data and the intent behind it. His problem is that he has no evidence. That’s why he didn’t charge Sussman with conspiracy. Charging him with lying gave him a way to push the conspiracy angle by using the lying charge as a conduit to argue the conspiracy theory without the evidence of it.

                    1. Svelaz,

                      You could be right but we need to wait to see the game plan of the prosecutor here. Durham advised the court that he intends to call former NY Times reporter Eric Lichtblau next week. This could be a crucial prosecution witness because he was described as skeptical of the Alpha bank data when given it by the campaign. Was Sussmann’s visit to the FBI an attempt to encourage the FBI to investigate so Lichtblau could be told that the FBI was looking at the data? This would have reduced his skepticism. The questions are several. Who coordinated the feeding of this info to Lichtblau, when, and, importantly, what was said about the FBI, if anything? It looks right now like the Lichtblau meeting occurred at least a month after the Sussmann-Baker meeting so this testimony would go to furthering the campaign’s involvement in getting this story into the media and using the FBI to help accomplish this. I grant you this is not an easy task for Durham to achieve; Lichtblau is not a happy witness for either side. He was awarded a Pulitzer prize for his reporting on the Russia-Trump scandal that turned out to be a hoax. I’m sure he’s somewhat sensitive about all that and doesn’t want to have to answer embarrassing questions under oath. It should be an interesting week. Next week will show if Durham can pull all these loose ends together and get back to proving the single count of lying. The rest is titillating no doubt but basically irrelevant to the indictment. Thanks for your comment and best wishes.

                  2. Narquan, if you bill a client for a meeting and say you are not representing a client at that meeting you are lying to someone. Since he billed the Clinton campaign for the work on the Alfa Bank matter he did before, during and after the meeting it is an obvious conclusion that he believed he was was acting for the campaign when he attended the meeting, not on his own. Whether the campaign expressly instructed him to have the meeting is not the issue, though the defence will try and make it the issue.

                    Maybe the billing records will not say what Durham says they say, but I doubt it. Maybe the jury will conclude that the billing records are not sufficient evidence of what Sussman believed, though I doubt that too. In the end, I think this case will stand or fall on the issue of materiality.

                    I agree that Clinton’s authorisation to provide the information to the media is irrelevant to this case.

                    1. To be honest, I haven’t given the materiality argument much thought. The reason is simple. The substance of the meeting was not to discuss lunch options, something that would have materiality significance but the turn over potential evidebce of a Russian bank’s connection to a presidential candidate – clearly a significant matter no matter how one spins it. Thus, I think that alone takes care of the materiality issue. The FBI accepted the info and they assigned agents to investigate it. Yes, they dismissed it as worthless several days later but by then the issue of materiality had been long decided when the info was turned over to agents be examined. The core issue here is, did Sussmann lie to Baker when he said he was not representing a client? The billing record may be useful but it’s far from essential because it was prepared by Sussmann or his office, not by anyone who directed him to deliver the info to the FBI. Was it billing fraud? Perhaps but that’s not charged in the indictment. Eric Lichtblau, the former NY Times reporter, will be an important witness for the prosecution next week. He is a reluctant witness, having filed a motion with the court to limit his testimony. Lichtblau was given the Alpha bank data a month after the Sussmann-Baker meeting. Who gave it to him, what was said, and was he informed that the FBI was looking at the data? The answers to these questions no doubt will go far to deciding Sussmann’s fate. Durham will also probably have a witness from the Perkin Coie firm to introduce the billing record. That person, likely an admin type, will be asked how approval for payment is made and when the invoice arrived. My guess is that it was prepared and submitted after the Sussmann meeting and when the meeting had occurred, Sussmann was in the clear to say he wasn’t representing anyone – at least insofar as having billed anyone for the meeting. Thanks for your comments.

                    2. What cant be ignored, the government worked hand and hand with the media. Media reporting was used as evidence for the FISA warrant.
                      The FBI/DoJ used Isokoff reporting for Yahoo, about the steele dossier.
                      It is juvenile circular logic. leak the lies to the media, and the govt, each use the other as verification of the lie.

                2. Daniel,

                  Durham alleges that Sussmann knowingly made a materially false statement that when he met with Baker on Sept. 19, saying that he was not “acting on behalf of any client conveying particular allegations concerning a Presidential candidate” (quoting the indictment).

                  You believe — despite not having seen any evidence for it yet — that Durham is correct in alleging that Sussmann billed HFA for this 9/19 meeting with Baker. Time will tell.

                  Some of this hinges on the meaning of “on behalf of.” Sussmann has testified that he was representing Joffe in this meeting (so it was on behalf of a client in the sense of “representing”). But Sussmann claims that he was not seeking any benefit for Joffe, and Sussmann had previously testified “I wasn’t looking for the FBI to do anything. I had no ask. I had no requests” (so it was not on behalf of a client in the sense of “seeking a benefit for”).

                  According to you: was he seeking a benefit for someone? If so, for whom, and what was the benefit?

                  1. Narquan, you misunderstand the materiality issue. It is not whether the information provided to the FBI about Alfa/Trump was material. It is whether Sussman’s lie about acting on his own was material. For it to be material it must have been capable of influencing the investigation. I doubt the FBI would have declined to investigate the information if Sussman had been honest about representing the campaign. He could simply have said that he represented the campaign, that this information came to him, that it looks important and that the FBI should check it out. It would have been irresponsible for the FBI to have ignored this. Maybe Durham will be able to show that there is something they might have done differently, but it is not obvious to me.

                    1. Excellent point! I should have known better than get caught up in the aura of the materiality of the info. Yes, of course what you say is so. And Baker’s testimony, I think, sinks Sussmann on this issue because, as I recall, Baker said something to effect that he might not have permitted the visit if he knew it was on behalf of the campaign. Sussmann had to know this, which is why he went to extremes to make sure Baker believed he was on his own. In this respect, materiality of the statement by Sussmann becomes front and center and also provides a motive for why he would lie to get a meeting with Baker. Thank you, Daniel, good point!

          2. I think the FBI was brought in to allow there to be stories saying that the FBI was investigating this. That lends credibility to the false allegations.

            1. Russia had hacked the DNC and released data to harm Clinton. You don’t think that there could be a legitimate reason to alert the FBI to anomalous DNS lookups?

              1. Since the DNC did not let the federal authorities to peruse ANY of their allegedly hacked system how can you say this without any proof whatsoever. It’s the same crew screaming they got hacked that created the russian collusion hoax/lies. Please lay off the party brand koolaide you are imbibing.

            2. Narquan, I believe you are right about Baker’s testimony. But I am not sure how credible it is. Imagine Sussman had not said in his text that he was acting on his own and had just asked for a meeting. Baker likely would have accepted. At the meeting Sussman would have provided the information and said it had come to him while representing the campaign. Would Baker have not forwarded the information for investigation?

          3. Narquan, you may be right that they are distancing themselves from being seen to have authorised the meeting with the FBI because they are concerned about the wider risk of being part of a criminal conspiracy. But it seems pretty clear that Sussman thought he was acting for the campaign during the meeting because he billed them for it. Yet he told Baker he was not.

            1. You keep assuming that Sussmann billed HFA for the meeting, even though you admit that you’re just taking Durham’s word for it and haven’t seen the evidence.

              If it turns out that Durham has clear evidence that Sussmann billed HFA for the 9/19 meeting, I will accept that. If it turns out that Durham has been misrepresenting his “evidence” all along, I hope you will likewise accept that. But right now, we don’t know either way.

              1. If Durham does not have billing records showing that Sussman billed the campaign for that meeting his case should fall apart. Since he quoted what the billing record says in the indictment I am very confident he will present that in court.

                1. In the indictment, Durham quoted HFA being billed for “work and communications regarding confidential project,” and claimed it was for the meeting with Baker, but the quote doesn’t mention the meeting with Baker. I’d like to know why he assumes that billing is for the meeting rather than for something else that day. Apparently Durham is planning to have a Perkins Coie person testify about how they track billing.

                  1. I’d like to know why he assumes that billing is for the meeting rather than for something else that day.

                    It’s very simple. Sussmann can just prove he did not use something fungible like money as a payment for something so specific.

                    1. Innocent until proven guilty means that Durham is the one who has to prove that Sussmann was representing HFA at the meeting, not just that Sussmann was representing HFA on other work. No one disputes the latter, and the latter is irrelevant to whether Sussmann made a material false statement to Baker at the 9/19 meeting, as charged in the indictment.

            2. Daniel,
              Yes, but it’s not what he did in furtherance of the conspiracy but what others did and paying a bill under the circumstances hardly inculpates the payer for the payee’s deeds unless they are expressly spelled out in advance and the payer has knowledge. We have no evidence that anyone besides Sussmann had knowledge that he was taking this stuff to the FBI. The billing records are helpful but not dispositive.

              1. They are pretty much dispositive of whether Sussman lied, which is the issue in this case, along with materiality. I agree that they are not dispositive of whether it can be proved that the campaign was part of a conspiracy to provide false evidence to the FBI.

                1. Daniel,
                  To get that billing record into evidence, Durham will need someone from the firm who received it or approved it for payment. Chances are that person will deny having any role in deciding policy and what to pay or not pay. There may have been someone in the campaign with supervisory authority to sign off on payments to the law firm. These people will be used to get the record into evidence so it can be shown to the court and jury. On cross, though, they likely will have little to nothing to add about whether the visit in question was authorized and when. Again, I go back to the likelihood that the billing was done after the meeting, which makes the statement by Sussmann tru when he made it before and during the meeting. Absent new evidence we do not know about, I don’t think the billing record is sufficient to convict.

        2. On the contrary, Sussmann has maintained all along that he wasn’t representing the Clinton Campaign when he went to the FBI, so he was not doing it “on their behalf.” He was doing what you claim was appropriate for someone who thought the data credible: giving the FBI a heads up about both the data and about a story that might be coming out, and then helping the FBI attempt to kill the story.

          For goodness sakes, if you’re going to make claims about it, learn the details of what both Sussmann and Durham are claiming, not just the latter.

          1. Anonymous, lets see if I got this straight. An attorney who represents the Clinton campaign who wants desperately for his client to win the Presidency goes to the FBI with an allegation that could help his client win the election. Out of the kindness of his heart with tears streaming from his eyes he tells another tale of a Trump Russia connection. I have a simple question for you. Would his fortune decrease or increase if Hillary would have won the election? Your attempt to paint this guy as an innocent angle operating for the good of the national has moved from the absurd to the laughable. You missed the call from the Democratic Party asking you to stop representing them. You should check your cellphone service.

            1. Stooge, 2 of Trump’s 3 wives are Slavic women who grew up in Eastern Europe. Trump named his daughter ‘Ivanka’. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Everyone knows that Russian investors’ saved Trump after Atlantic City.

              1. Anonymous, so according to you anyone who grew up in eastern Europe is automatically connected to Russia, I guess you should tell that to the Ukrainians. From Reuters on the Russian investors in Trump properties. “The Reuters review of investors from Russia in Trump’s Florida condominium buildings found no suggestion of wrongdoing by President Trump or his real estate organization. And none of the buyers appear to be from Putin’s inner circle.” As usual when being confronted with your lack of logic in your presentations you find it necessary to result to name calling. It used to be troll then it was idiot and your new favorite invective is stooge. It might well serve the respect for your postings if you would just leave out the name calling and just present the facts if you can ever find them.

              2. “Stooge, 2 of Trump’s 3 wives are Slavic women who grew up in Eastern Europe. Trump named his daughter ‘Ivanka’. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Everyone knows that Russian investors’ saved Trump after Atlantic City.”

                Congratulations Anomaly, you won the award for the dumbest comment of the day!

                1. Wow , you’re pretty shallow and reaching there. Meanwhile hunter biden emailed his buddied he was too busy to work on his golf game because “he was taking over ukraine”. But that kind of demokrat corruption is AOK with you and right down to lawyers lying to the FB-Lie to perpetuate a hoax quite illegally.

            2. You didn’t get it straight.

              As a start, Sussmann represented a variety of clients. The Clinton Campaign was only one of his clients. Durham alleges that in Sussmann’s 9/19/2016 meeting with Baker, Sussmann was representing two different clients: the Clinton Campaign and Joffe. However, Sussmann claims that he was not representing the Clinton Campaign at this meeting, only Joffe, and he wasn’t seeking a benefit for Joffe.

              Durham has to prove his allegation. That you wish to believe Durham is irrelevant to the jury. They don’t care what you believe.

              1. Anonymous, once again I ask. Do you think that Sussman’s fortune would increase or decrease if Hillary would have won? You can continue to tell us that Sussmann had nothing to gain but when we see a dog with his nose to the ground we know he’s on the hunt. He ain’t just sniffen for the good of the national. He’s just huntin to try to keep his belly full.

                1. TIT, your question is legally irrelevant. Either Durham has evidence that Sussmann billed the 9/19/2016 meeting to HFA or he doesn’t.

                  “You can continue to tell us that Sussmann had nothing to gain”

                  You’re lying, TIT, as usual. Apparently you get off on making straw man claims.

                  1. Imagine if what you are postulating now was against your nemesis Trump …you would be singing a different hypocritical tune ( as you did ) . Do you not see your TDS , hypocrisy and denial for what it is ?. Shoe is on the other foot and Durham has receipts.

            1. Daniel, please identify the docket filing where you believe Durham provided evidence of that. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you’re taking Durham’s word for it in the absence of evidence.

              1. Para 29 of Sussman’s indictment says he billed the meeting with Baker to the Clinton campaign. The indictment also says he billed time to the campaign for preparing for the meeting. I have no doubt that Durham has the documentary evidence to support those statements.

                1. So you haven’t actually seen the evidence.

                  You don’t doubt Durham’s claims about it. Based on errors I’ve seen Durham make, I do doubt Durham’s claims about it. I’m certainly not going to treat it as a fact until I see his evidence.

                2. Daniel,
                  As I mentioned earlier, a billing record is like a record of a toll call – it puts A in contact with B but does not impute responsibility to A for what B did. You’ve got to have more evidence than the billing record unless, that is, the billing record states explicitly that Sussmann was meeting with Baker to provide the Alpha Bank materials, white papers and thumb drives. I doubt if the billing records are that specific and even if they were, the client could say she/he didn’t know or approve of the work being done beforehand but paid the bill because there was an agreement to pay the bill. A juror just needs to doubt this point to hang the jury.

                  1. Narquan, you are making a point not relevant to this case. Sussman billed his client for the meeting with Baker yet he told Baker he was not representing a client at the meeting. Unless he was engaging in billing fraud, he lied to Baker.

        3. Daniel, It’s my understanding that Mook said the Clinton campaign didn’t trust the FBI at that point because of how Comey publicly handled the Clinton investigation. Have you factored that into your analysis? Thanks.

          1. Concerned Citizen, Comey had a meeting with Trump to tell him about the pee tape. After the meeting it was leaked to the press. The FBI agent Peter Strock said that the FBI would stop Trump. James Baker doesn’t inform the FBI agent investigation the Alpha Bank allegations that the information came from a Clinton operative. The Democrats trusted the FBI to investigate RussiaGate. The Democrats trusted the FBI to stop Trump. The Democrats trusted the head of the legal Division at the FBI to not tell it’s own investigator what the chain of possession was for the two thumb drives they received from Sussmann. Now to say that they didn’t trust the FBI should be considered as no more than a very sick joke. From one concerned citizen to another.

          2. Maybe, but Sussman billed the campaign for the meeting. He must have believed he was acting for the campaign when he did that. At the same time he told Baker he was not acting for a client. That is lying. Whether it was material or not is a tougher question.

        4. The campaign foreign policy advisor recommended the Russian smear. Someone named Jake Sullivan. What he could be doing now?

          1. RE:””The campaign foreign policy advisor recommended the Russian smear. Someone named Jake Sullivan. What he could be doing now?”” Any individual who would consider him a suitable candidate for a responsible position in government would have to be braindead.

    1. The same report indicates that 70% of Musk’s followers are also fake. I think Musk is trying to renegotiate the price and to show that Twitter is a Potemkin village.

      1. He’s free to make that argument, but he’s bound by the terms of the legal agreement he signed.

        1. Are both parties bound by the agreement?

          Twitter represented to Musk, 5% of twitters traffic were bots. If Musk can reveal the real number is higher, Musk can walk away, or twitter can offer to renegotiate the price.

          1. Have you read the agreement?

            My guess: you haven’t, so you shouldn’t be making assumptions about what it says.

        2. He relied on the integrity of the 5% estimate in Twitter’s public filings. If those were fraudulent, or perhaps merely reckless or negligent, he can walk. My guess is that Twitter will not want to have those estimates tested in court — the class action liability would be enormous.

            1. In waiving due diligence he relied on the integrity of the public filings. If those were fraudulent (or possibly merely reckless or negligent) his waiver would be ineffective.

              1. I doubt that negligence is sufficient. And he hasn’t shown negligence, much less fraud.

  8. Biden, his DOJ, FBI, Obama’s hypocrisy as a grifter’s grifter and the discredited liberal media are now exposed in the eyes of most Americans as power hungry, out of touch greedy elites The polls consistently reveal, with this week’s Quinipac poll being the most recent, that Americans distrust Biden’s handlers, particularly Hispanics. Now this. When the Miami Herald castigates Biden for giving Florida to the GOP, 6 months from the midterm election, with his coddling of Communists in Cuba and Marxists in Venezuela, it is Game. Set. Match. Well done, Brandon.

    Biden abandons Florida Dems in tough races to run a fool’s errand in Cuba, Venezuela

    1. ESTOVIR,

      This paragraph is from your Miami Herald article:

      The battle for the political soul and future of this country is being waged in the Sunshine State, which has gone dark playing extremist politics. This is the birthplace of the successful Republican conspiracy theory, now bandied about nationally, that Democrats are socialists and communists. The lie is a useful tool that wins the GOP elections. And, as we’ve seen during the last two legislative sessions in this once purple and now red-dominated state, those elections result in the loss of civil rights for mostly Democratic-leaning residents.

      1. Anonymous, if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck you should come to the conclusion that it’s a duck. If it wants to take away states rights (waddle) and if it wants to censor what you can say (quack) it is not a conspiracy to say that its a Socialist. You can go to the zoo or to Democratic headquarters and you will notice that the waddling and the quacking look and sound eerily the same.

        1. Stooge,

          Estovir and Thinkthrough are ‘you’. Why can’t you stick to just one name?? Readers should note that you’re just a dirty trickster with no intention of engaging in real debates.

        2. “Anonymous, if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck you should come to the conclusion that it’s a duck. If it wants to take away states rights (waddle) and if it wants to censor what you can say (quack) it is not a conspiracy to say that its a Socialist. You can go to the zoo or to Democratic headquarters and you will notice that the waddling and the quacking look and sound eerily the same.”

          + 100000000

      2. “Democrats are socialists and communists”

        Because they are! Even the liberal press is admitting it. Hope springs eternal


      3. It sounds as if anonymous doesn’t know what socialists and communists are. Florida is a very free state and freer under DeSantis.

        Why don’t you keep your ignorance at home?

  9. Jonathan: It looks like you have pretty much admitted Durham is facing an uphill battle in proving his case against Sussmann. It was a weak case from the beginning. Durham was pushed by Trump and Barr to find a crime by the Clinton campaign. It was a conspiracy theory looking for a crime. And who is to blame if Durham loses the case? You blame everyone else–Judge Cooper for limiting admissible evidence, not dismissing jurors with an alleged Clinton bias, and one juror who is a “donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”. You seem to think it is a grand conspiracy by judge and a “liberal” Dem jury to prevent a verdict against Sussmann. It’s all sours grapes on your part. So let’s move on to some more juicy news about Elon Musk.

    Business Insider is reporting that Musk paid of of his flight attendants on SpaceX $250,000 to settle a sexual misconduct claim in 2018. In a declaration by a close friend of the complainant the FA says that Musk exposed his erect penis, rubbed the FA’s leg and asked her for an “erotic” massage. The FA says that when she went to work for SpaceX she was encouraged to get a masseuse license so she could give Musk massages. It was during one such massage on Musk’s private jet that Musk propositioned her. The FA refused and the $250,000 was part of a severance agreement to keep the FA quiet. Jeffrey Epstein and Trump have nothing on Musk.

    Billionaires believe that all that money entitles them to sexual favors from otherwise unwilling young women. If Musk does eventually buy Twitter do you think he will permit discussions of this incident on HIS social media platform? I know where I’m placing my bet!

    1. You actually consider Business Insider a reliable ‘news’ source? Sorry, but it is not.

      Do your critical thinking skills ever kick in to say, hmmm the timing of this sexual misconduct story is awfully suspicious? Do you know how many ‘nuisance’ claims like this one, against wealthy/public figures, are regularly settled for this very amount? Stop and think. Then catch up with the program, buddy.

      1. Anonymous (the right-wing one): And I suppose Fox, Breitbart or whoever you turn for your news are more “reliable”? Just shows the level of your “critical thinking skills”. Musk now says on Twitter the charges are “utterly untrue” and politically motivated. Musk also says “unless it is stopped, the woke mind virus will destroy civilization and humanity will never reached (sic) Mars”. How Musk proposes to “stop” the “woke mind virus” he doesn’t say. Kind of a strange response to the FA’s allegations. What does the “woke mind virus” have to do with the sexual misconduct charges? On Wednesday Musk bizarrely claimed “Yale is the epicenter of the woke mind virus attempting to destroy civilization” .He even says this “virus” is “making Netflix unwatchable”. It appears Musk has been spending too much time in weightless space. It has turned his brain into mush. But it’s all about diversion. Musk talks about the “woke mind virus” so he doesn’t have to address the specific allegations of sexual misconduct by his former employee.

        If Musk really thinks the charges against him are untrue and he can prove it, you would expect he would soon be filing defamation suits against Business Insider, the FA and her friend. Even if the Business Insider story is true Musk may still file suit, if only to protect his “reputation” that increasingly appears suspect. Jeffrey Epstein also denied the sex trafficking and other charges against him but decided suicide was a better choice then facing trial and the truth. I agree that the rich and famous often face nuisance lawsuits by people who only want to get some money. And Musk is a convenient target because he is the richest person in the world. If you have any specific information that exonerates Musk please inform. I would much rather discuss how Musk wants to turn Twiitter into his personal social media platform to push conspiracy theories and the support of GOP candidates–like Donald Trump–that would be horrible for free expression and a threat to our democracy.. OK “buddy”?

        1. Elon is now target numero uno. Him and Desantis. And Trump, of course.

          Elon is on offense and trolling the sh*t out of people on twitter. Ain’t it fun?

          Did you see this one? Ooh ooh, when can we start, Elon?! ——–>

          “Looking for hardcore streetfighters, not white-shoe lawyers like Perkins or Cooley who thrive on corruption.

          There will be blood.”


          6:14 PM · May 20, 2022

  10. I think the defense strategy now being employed goes beyond the Sussmann trial and, indeed, Sussmann looks like he will be thrown to the wolves in the process to save the queen. Oppo-research is constitutionally protected material and, as we know from the “dirty tricks” days of Nixon’s campaign, there’s nothing wrong in slandering or libeling your opponent if that opponent is running for office. It becomes wrong and potentially a crime if and when you bring the government in to help – wittingly or unwittingly. Robby Mook this morning said he didn’t know Sussmann was taking this stuff to the FBI and, he said, neither did Hillary know. Elias said the same thing yesterday. Poor Michael; they all love him dearly but he made a mistake and now must own it. The only potential fly in this ointment may come from Durham’s batch of emails and text messages but they will not be divulged in this trial. Hillary’s tweet and that of Sullivan refer to “scientists” and “hope” that federal officials will investigate to see if it’s true. Were they clever enough to fashion this alibi back when or is it serendipitous now? Will it collapse if there’s evidence showing the plan was to get the FBI to investigate, then give it to the media with the proviso that the FBI is already on the case? Stay tuned. That’s a case for another day. Right now, it looks like Michael is the designated fall guy.

  11. OT: The Ukrainian Army is getting crushed and they are starting to fold. The daily losses are disgusting…500 killed/day. The Ukrainian forces in the east are facing encirclement. You wouldn’t know that watching the corporate media, but soon you will. And all for a war they were always going to lose. Their *only* hope for “victory” was to draw the West into WW3. As reality sets in I wonder how we will deal with this loss. Will the neo-cons, neo-liberals and their corporate media be discredited? Again. Will the good professor start to question Washington’s narrative? Will the CIA concoct another desperate false flag?

    1. Ivan, not sure where you are getting your data. It appears to me that:

      1. Russia’s regime change gamble failed when they were forced to retreat from Kyiv.

      2. Since then they have focused on consolidating and extending their newly won area in the south (Kherson) and taking all of Luhansk and Donetsk.

      3. In this they are making slow progress. My guess is that they will eventually succeed in retaining Kherson (it’s not yet clear if they will seek Odessa as well) and in taking all of Luhansk and Donetsk.

      4. The only way this war will end is by the same agreement that could have been had before it began. Crimea is part of Russia, Luhansk and Donetsk are independent/autonomous and Ukraine is to remain outside NATO.

      The longer it takes to get to this point, the greater the death and destruction in Ukraine, the more disruption of the global economy there will be, the greater the cost of maintaining the ability of Ukraine to continue fighting and the higher the risk that the war will escalate.

      This is yet one more failure of the incompetent Biden regime. They faced a choice last Fall between military deterrence and genuine diplomacy. They chose neither and this is the result.

        1. Everyone you disagree with is a Russian troll. LOL. I have been posting here for many years using the same moniker. I live in NYC if you ever want to drop by for a visit we can meet each other.

      1. I’m using data from Western sources…just search for Ukraine War Map on google. You can see the encirclement of the Ukrainian army
        in real time.

        1. The operation around Kiev was to fix the Ukrainian forces into place. It was never to take the city. This is obvious.
        2. Regime change is not the goal. They need someone legitimate to issue the surrender order after all.
        3. The initial goal is to surround and destroy the Ukrainian army in the Donbas which they are well on their way to accomplishing.

        The collapse of the Ukrainian army in the east is coming and no amount of propaganda can stop it.

  12. Rather than wasting my time on the trolls, I’ll just do a blanket comment: anyone that honestly believes our modern DNC is populated by anyone but sociopathic fascists is likely also a sociopathic fascist. That they can be put in attack mode by free speech on freaking insignificant Twitter when asleep for so much else is all you need to know. If you still vote dem, you are either admitting you are brainwashed and stupid, know better but don’t want to lose status either socially or materially, or too young to know better. And again, no, not voting dem does not automatically make a person ‘Republican’, it is a free country, any to counter anything I’ve posted here either makes you 14 years old or irretrievably stupid and/or indoctrinated/and or intellectually and morally (possibly physically as well) lazy beyond intervention. Yes that all sounds arrogant, and yes I don’t give a **** because at this point in time it’s true. Modern, privileged liberals are the biggest embarrassment to the human race and its cause of fairness and peace the world has *ever* seen. You are a joke. Your money will not save you.


    The judicial branch, by omission, nullified the Constitution, commandeered dominion and usurped the power of Congress, the People.

    As the Supreme Court finally confessed and admitted, abortion was never a right, and the Supreme Court decision allowing it was egregiously erroneous and corrupt.

    By the same intellection, secession was utterly constitutional, the colossal “Reign of Terror” of Lincoln must have been struck down and never happened, the Naturalization Act of 1802 must have been enforced in 1863, and not one aspect of the communist American welfare state should exist today – no central planning, no control of the means of production, no redistribution of wealth and no social engineering – no violations of the comprehensive Article 1, Section 8 restrictions on taxation and regulation, and no violations of the absolute right to private property.

    Karl Marx’s “…RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD…” through the unconstitutional actions of Abraham Lincoln, including the antithetical and unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments,” must have never been conceived, much less improperly ratified under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation and forcibly imposed on America.

    America and Americans should be enjoying the full rights and freedoms of the U.S Constitution and Bill of Rights to this day, not the enslavement and oppression of the Communist Manifesto.

  14. ..quite amazing that judges, the top Officers of The Court, can be so Blatantly politically prejudicial, completely disregarding the vows they took…really disgusting the way they are making this a third world country with their behaviour…..

    1. I used to think the dems final desperate play would be invoking the 25th on Biden, but now I think a whole lot more will pull a Liz Cheney and try to take over the GOP. The Soros DAs were a sneak preview. Pay attention. Pay very, very close attention. There is no low too low for modern democrats, and the Mitch McConnells of the world will be all too happy to embrace them.

      1. Liz Cheney will switch party and be the dim standard bearer in2024.

          1. She’s not going to be the congresswoman from Wyoming, that’s for sure.

            1. We won’t even know until August if she’s lost the primary.

              You’re free to count chickens, but I won’t join you.

  15. Prof Turley, to his credit, took the red pill. He knows the game is rigged.

  16. What is clear is that there are two standards of justice in this country, one for liberals and one for conservatives and that the FBI and the courts are rotten. Does anyone wonder why Trump gets traction with his conspiracy theories? A large portion of the country legitimately does not trust anything coming out of government or the media. Once that is the case, you can never disprove anything Trump says. It always relies on someone tainted in the chain of evidence/reporting.

  17. (OT)

    “Elon Musk was accused of exposing himself to a flight attendant aboard one of his private planes in 2016 — and SpaceX later paid the woman $250,000 to settle her sexual misconduct claim, a new report said.”

    John Iadarola: “Elon Musk is a true warrior for free speech, which is why I have no doubt he will willingly free anyone currently bound by NDAs so they can tell their stories.”

    1. Those working at Twitter who like to suppress speech are annoyed that their ability to do so in the future will be curtailed. They will now engage in muck throwing, and who better to throw muck than the child molester anonymous. I read about his being a child molester on this blog.

  18. This is a more than ample reason why the US Capitol should be moved out of the area and the district returned to Maryland, from when it came. When the capitol was established, it was in the center of the then existing United States. The United States now reaches from the Atlantic to the Pacific and DC is on the eastern edge. Take a trip to DC and you’ll see why there can never be a fair trial in that city.

    1. DC cannot be “returned to Maryland” without approval from Maryland. States’ rights, you know.

      Don’t hold your breath waiting for your wish to be fulfilled.

    2. “Take a trip to DC and you’ll see why there can never be a fair trial in that city.” What does this mean?

    3. Not only will the Capital not be moved, nor the district be returned to Maryland, what the far left has stated it wants is for D.C. to become a State. Unfortunately, it seems that may happen if the far left is not removed from power.

  19. “However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial.”

    This is a tragic example of how the loss of objectivity — in academia, the media, the law — undermines peoples’ confidence in those institutions.

    1. Sam,
      “Undermines peoples’ confidence in those institutions.” That is true for fair minded people, but for those who use the system for what they want out of it, and don’t care about fairness or objectivity, the confidence is high that they will get their way. So long as the unfairness does not harm them, they willingly accept it.

Comments are closed.