Below is an expanded version of my column in The Hill on the implication of Hillary Clinton in false Alfa Bank claims of Russian collusion. While most media ignored the testimony of Clinton’s former campaign manager in the Sussmann trial, it adds to a damning record on how the Clinton campaign was behind arguably the most successful disinformation campaign in American political history with both the Steele dossier and the Alfa bank claims. Ironically, despite Sussmann efforts to conceal his connections to Clinton in the FBI meeting, it was his counsel who effectively outed Clinton in the scandal. Former Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook then violated the Eleventh Commandment of Democrats: Thou shalt not name a Clinton in a scandal.
Here is the column:
The trial of former Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann crossed a critical threshold Friday when a key witness uttered the name “Hillary Clinton” in conjunction with a plan to spread the false Alfa Bank Russian collusion claim before the 2016 presidential election.
For Democrats and many in the media, Hillary Clinton has long held a Voldemort-like status as “She who must not be named” in scandals. Yet, there was her former campaign manager, Robby Mook, telling a jury that Clinton personally approved a plan to spread the false claim of covert communications between the Trump organization and the Russian bank. It was one of the most successful disinformation campaigns in American politics, and Mook implicated Clinton as green-lighting the gas-lighting of the electorate.
The mere mention of Clinton’s name sent shockwaves through Washington. In past scandals, the Clintons have always evaded direct responsibility as aides were investigated or convicted, from the Whitewater land dealings to cattle futures. Even when long-sought documents in Whitewater were discovered outside of the family quarters and bearing Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints, Washington quickly moved on.
Clinton was presumed to be untouchable in the Sussmann trial after Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, issued a series of orders limiting the scope of the trial and its evidence. The orders were viewed as “spar[ing] the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”
Ironically, after successfully excluding such areas from the trial, it was the defense that called Mook to the stand — and he proceeded to confirm that Clinton herself approved of the collusion disinformation tactic.
It was Washington’s worst-kept but least-acknowledged secret.
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.”
Thus, Mook testified that Clinton did precisely what Brennan warned Obama was being planned.
The date of Brennan’s warning is important: It was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation began. It also was a couple of months before Sussmann contacted then-FBI general counsel Jim Baker while claiming he was not representing any client. (He was counsel to the Clinton campaign and, according to prosecutors, billed the time to the campaign.)
There is a strikingly familiar pattern in both the Steele dossier — which became the basis for the Russia collusion investigation — and the Alfa Bank tale. Campaign associates developed both claims while actively seeking to conceal their connections from the public and the government, including reportedly denying the funding of the Steele dossier and concealing that funding as legal costs.
The campaign then pushed these unfounded claims to the media and the FBI. Indeed, prosecutors this week contended that Sussmann continued to push the Alfa Bank claims after Trump was elected, in an apparent effort to fuel the Russia collusion claims being breathlessly reported in the media at the time.
When Clinton allegedly approved this disinformation effort, her campaign was aware that the Alfa Bank theory was never viewed as credible by researchers tasked with supporting it. Those researchers warned that it would be easy to “poke several holes” in the claim and that the data could be seen as “a red herring.” Yet, trial witnesses admitted that they hoped the media would make the claims stick.
Despite a record of Clinton associates aggressively pushing these false allegations to the FBI on both the Steele dossier and Alfa Bank, Mook and another witness, Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias, insisted they preferred to use the media for such efforts. The campaign found a conduit in one liberal magazine, for example, whose story was then cited as a “bombshell” report, as if the campaign had had nothing to do with it.
For her part, Clinton not only approved using the false Alfa Bank claim but personally helped to portray it as an established fact, tweeting: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”
That claim was then further amplified by one of her campaign advisers, Jake Sullivan, who now serves as President Biden’s national security adviser. Sullivan declared at the time: “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” Sullivan added that he could “only assume federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia’s meddling in our elections.”
As the FBI’s Baker and other witnesses told jurors this week, there was in fact “nothing there.”
The sudden and unexpected inclusion of Hillary Clinton in Sussmann’s trial occurred despite the best efforts of Judge Cooper and the defense. Besides limiting the scope of evidence involving Clinton, the judge allowed three Clinton donors to sit as jurors, along with another juror who is a supporter and donor to liberal firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.).
For special prosecutor John Durham, it must seem like the only juror missing is Chelsea Clinton. When we discuss a “jury of your peers,” however, it is not meant to suggest that a Clinton lawyer should be tried by Clinton supporters.
Months after approving the Alpha Bank disinformation strategy, Clinton called in December 2016 to censor opponents who she accused of spreading falsehoods to try to influence elections. She declared that “it’s now clear that so-called ‘fake news’ can have real-world consequences.” Indeed, Clinton has pushed for state and corporate censorship while demanding a “global reckoning” with those who spread disinformation. Of course, Sussmann could still face the real consequence of conviction given the strength of the evidence against him. Yet, there will likely not be consequences, let alone a “reckoning,” for Hillary Clinton.
230 thoughts on “How the Sussmann Trial Inadvertently Revealed the Role of Clinton in the Alfa Bank Scandal”
The CCP-USA plan is proceeding just as Hunter Biden’s dahdee agreed in exchange for receipt of Hunter’s 30 pieces of
We’re at the point in the rolling communist revolution where you can’t afford groceries or gas and the military is being used to fly in baby formula
“How did Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann spend 2 years investigating Trump-Russia; with a team of 19 lawyers, $40 million in resources, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants and 500 witnesses; and not find out that Hillary Clinton created the hoax they were investigating?”
“Media people often forget, or perhaps -again- need to pretend not to know; however, the exact same group of FBI and DOJ staff level investigative officials that originated the Trump investigation in 2016, transferred into the Robert Mueller investigation in May 2017. It was the same people, doing the same investigation, under a different title.”
Because it wasn’t a hoax. Trump publicly asked Russia to commit a crime on his behalf. Stone colluded with Guccifer 2. Manafort colluded with Kilimnik.
Have I got a deal for you! Prime land in southern Florida! Cheap! Comes with a bridge!
Wish casting never worked for you yet here you are still casting your incantations.
Trump committed no crime but Hitlery did in impeding the work of a US President to whom she lost bigly
Colluded does not mean what you think it means
Act Blue is not sending their better trolls
Your conservative troll farm isn’t sending their better trolls.
You veered away from your talking points. Bad bad troll
Trump was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Trump was talking about the 30,000 Stated Department emails missing from her private surver, that she did not turn over to the State Department.
Not the DNC emails, of which no evidence exists, were ever hacked by Russia
We know most all of Clinton’s emails during her tenure as Secretary of State were forwarded to China. That would include all her official correspondence.
<The Daily Caller reported that the firm operating in the D.C. area wrote code that was then embedded in the server and generated a “courtesy copy” for almost all her emails — which was then forwarded to the Chinese company.
The code reportedly was discovered in 2015 by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), which then warned FBI officials of the intrusion.
Further, a May 2016 email from Strzok, obtained by Fox News earlier this year, said “we know foreign actors obtained access” to some Clinton emails, including at least one “secret” message “via compromises of the private email accounts” of Clinton staffers.
What was the “crime,” again?
The crime is whatever his handlers told him to report for today’s talking point memo. It will change tomorrow and so forth
Hacking servers is a crime. Is that the crime you’re asking about?
To start with.
The Secretary of State using equipment not approved by the State Dept to communicate. Then refusing to turn over 30000thousand emails at the end of her tenure.
So Obama Judges who protect narratives and leftist criminals really do exist.
Back to you Justice Roberts.
I see “anonymous” is back from the MonkeyPox rave in Antwerp.
A pox upon Hillary!
Maybe Monkeypox is here (again) for a reason.
In 2003, forty-seven confirmed and probable casesexternal icon of monkeypox were reported from six states—Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Turley continues to lie to his readers, for example:
“Ironically, despite Sussmann efforts to conceal his connections to Clinton in the FBI meeting, it was his counsel who effectively outed Clinton in the scandal.”
“her campaign was aware that the Alfa Bank theory was never viewed as credible by researchers tasked with supporting it.”
Sussmann’s counsel did call Mook to testify, but it was Durham’s team that asked Mook to read it in its entirety, contrary to the Judge’s order:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. DeFilippis, if you can lay a foundation that he had knowledge that a story had come out and that the campaign decided to issue the release in response to the story, I’ll let you admit the Tweet. However, the last paragraph, I agree with the defense, is substantially more prejudicial than it is probative because he has testified that had neither — he nor anyone at the campaign knew that Mr. Sussmann went to the FBI, no one authorized him to go to the FBI, and there’s been no other evidence admitted in the case that would suggest that that took place. And so this last paragraph, I think, would unfairly suggest to the jury, without any evidentiary foundation, that that was the case. All right?
MR. DeFILIPPIS: Your Honor, just two brief questions on that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DeFILIPPIS: Can we — so can we use — depending on what he says about whether he was aware of the Tweet or the public statement, may we use it to refresh him?
THE COURT: Sure. Sure.
MR. DeFILIPPIS: Okay. And then, as to the last paragraph, could it be used for impeachment or refreshing purposes as well in terms of any dealings with the FBI?
THE COURT: You can use anything to refresh.
MR. DeFILIPPIS: Okay.
THE COURT: But we’re not going to publish it to the jury. We’re not going to read from it. And let’s see what he says.
Source of the quote above, discussing this very issue:
Turley says that Clinton’s “campaign was aware that the Alfa Bank theory was never viewed as credible by researchers tasked with supporting it. Those researchers warned that it would be easy to “poke several holes” in the claim and that the data could be seen as “a red herring,”” but that’s an overstatement.
The quotes that Turley takes those phrases from:
From Researcher-1: “A DNS expert would poke several holes to this hypothesis (primarily around visibility, about which very smartly you do not talk about). That being said, I do not think even the top security (non-DNS) researchers can refute your statements. Nice!” We do not know which “hypothesis” Researcher-1 is referring to there, because Durham does not include the entire email as an exhibit in the indictment. There is no reason to assume that it was written about “the Alfa Bank theory” (quoting Turley).
From Joffe, which even Durham doesn’t quote in full: Tech Executive-I expressed his own belief that the “trump-email.com” domain (referring to the subject of the allegations that SUSSMANN conveyed to the FBI) was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1 , but “a red herring,” noting that the host for that domain “is a legitimate valid [customer relationship management] company.” Tech Executive-I therefore concluded that “we can ignore it, together with others that seem to be part of the marketing world.” This clearly is *not* a statement about “the Alfa Bank theory” as a whole.
Turley wishes to make this about Clinton. Despite being a defense lawyer, Turley does not point out that Sussmann could now ask for a mistrial because DeFilippis (a lawyer on Durham’s team) asked a witness to read out loud — for the jury to hear — an email that Judge Cooper had explicitly told DeFilippis could not be read aloud to the jury, only given to Mook to read silently to refresh his memory. I doubt that Turley is even aware of this. He seems to rely on incomplete news reports — not complete trial transcripts — for his information.
I don’t believe there’s any evidence to support a mistrial as the judge allowed him to read it…out loud or silently was not differentiated. Jonathan is only reporting what was revealed in the trial that we’ve all known from day 1 but had little proof, that Clinton was neck deep in the disinformation campaign. You’re right, this trial is not about her although there should be some mechanism to bring there to account. Hopefully, there will be in the future as we desperately need to stop this sort of political behavior. I don’t think a conviction will occur under any circumstances as the jury is stacked against Durham, intentionally. Doubtful a conviction against any democratic political operative no matter the criminal act will ever occur in a DC court.
“out loud or silently was not differentiated”
I disagree. The judge said “You can use anything to refresh,” but he explicitly proscribed it being seen or heard by the **jury** when he said “we’re not going to publish it to the jury. We’re not going to read from it,” meaning that it could not be read aloud (whether by the prosecution or by the witness) or given to the jury to read. This implies that it could be used it to refresh only via silent reading.
“there should be some mechanism to bring there to account”
According to you, what crime did she commit?
From cattle futures, to bimbo eruptions, to “At this point, what difference does it make?” in reference to the killings in Libya: this woman is duplicitous in nearly every dealing with the electorate including defrauding said electorate about Trump. You wanna pretend she is the royalty. She acts like royalty when she parades around in gowns with little children holding her train. It’s disgusting to me, but I do understand it is glorious to your side. Whatever…yeah sure she has never committed a crime.
I don’t find Clinton “glorious,” am not pretending that she is royalty, voted against her in the Dem primaries, and only voted for her in 2016 general because I dislike Trump even more. So drop that garbage.
Clinton is not on trial here. If Durham has evidence that Clinton committed crimes, he should charge her. No one should be above the law: not Clinton, not Trump, not Biden, … NO ONE.
This is a trial for Sussmann, and Durham’s team should not be conniving to get info into testimony that the judge had ordered be kept out.
Empty wheel is a left wing prog trash rag run by a failed jurinalist who promoted the Russian hoax. She is as honest and trustworthy as WaPo, NYT, MSNBC, etc
“Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist (who some may remember around dKos as emptywheel), wrote an extraordinary post on her blog today. In it, she describes sharing information with the FBI about someone she had reason to believe was helping the Russians interfere with the 2016 election. ”
Note that Biden, Hillary, DNC, Big Tech, etc interfering with the 2020 election did not rank important, but proving as such just recently merits accusations of being a threat to democracy. Cue the BLM ANTIFA DNC Brownshirts
Thanks for highlighting that she’s patriotic!
“According to you, what crime did she commit?”
Impersonating a human being.
“Jonathan is only reporting what was revealed in the trial that we’ve all known from day 1 but had little proof…”
JT is reporting it as if it’s new information. It isn’t new. It’s a public tweet that’s been known for years:
Why on earth are you suggesting that this tweet introduces something new?
“I don’t think a conviction will occur under any circumstances”
I don’t think there’s much evidence in favor of conviction on the actual charge. For example, so far, Durham still hasn’t provided evidence that Sussmann billed HFA for this meeting. I’ll change my mind if Durham produces good evidence for the actual charge.
The judge’s ruling (as is typical on these kind of rulings) is always subject to two things. First, in this instance the defense opened the door which freed up the prosecution’s ability to inquire about it. Also, motions like the one in question are as tentative and can be reconsidered at trial. so the defense opened the door which also had the effect of undoing the motion.
No, the defense didn’t open the door to that being read to the jury. The discussion I quoted occurred in a bench conference immediately before DeFilippis had Mook read the tweet, and part of what Mook read has already been redacted from the jury’s version of the trial transcript and from the tweet evidence that the jury will see: https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/05/22/that-clinton-tweet-could-lead-to-a-mistrial-and-certainly-reversal-on-appeal/
You would have better credibility using Walter Duranty as your source considering he earned a Pulitzer Prize for the NYT for lying.
told DeFilippis could not be read aloud to the jury, only given to Mook to read silently to refresh his memory.
MR. DeFILIPPIS: Can we — so can we use — depending on what he says about whether he was aware of the Tweet or the public statement, may we use it to refresh him?
MR. DeFILIPPIS: Okay. And then, as to the last paragraph, could it be used for impeachment or refreshing purposes as well in terms of any dealings with the FBI?
These are at worst ambigious, or more favorable to the govt, clear exception…..depending on the witness testimony
Regardless, it is up to the defense, to defend his client, during the testitmony. The Defense did not even ask for the testimony to be stricken from the official record.
Actually, if you clicked on the link I gave, you’d know that it HAS been stricken from the official record.
So its gone. what are you going on about?
For someone who claims to know so much to be anonymous raises red flags to me. We know who mr. Turkey is. Who are you?
“without any evidentiary foundation”
The court of public opinion is replete with lies and falsehoods because statements are made “without any evidentiary foundation” unlike a court of law.
Jonathan, maybe an article on the difference between Judge Cooper’s treatment of the prosecution and Judge Sullivan’s treatment of the Flynn defense would be of interest!
Flynn pleaded guilty. It was not a jury trial, and for most of Flynn’s time, there was no “defense.”
Anonymous is being deceitful and lying.
“Flynn pleaded guilty” is true, not a lie.
“It was not a jury trial” is true, not a lie.
“for most of Flynn’s time, there was no ‘defense'” is true, not a lie.
Half-truths created on purpose are no different from lies. Deception can be a lie as well. You do both continuously.
Flynn was innocent, should never have been investigated, should never have been charged, should never have been treated the way he was, should never have been threatened by the FBI, and should never have been bankrupted by the government, etc.
You are a piece of work. You would have gone far in the world of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
In other words, nothing I said was false, and you were lying when you accused me of lying. This is why your nickname is S. Meyer the Troll Liar.
You omitted the fact that the DOJ dropped their case against Flynn and he walked free. It’s called lying by omission.
If omitting something is lying, then you’re lying right now by omitting the vast majority of the relevant evidence in the case.
I don’t agree that “lying by omission” is lying. If omitting something is lying, then everyone lies all the time.
Lying is knowingly stating something false with intent to deceive. Nothing I wrote was false, and I wasn’t trying to deceive anyone. I was simply explaining why the two cases aren’t analogous. That the DOJ moved to dismiss is actually another difference in the two cases and only underscores that they aren’t analogous.
He’s not lying. There’s a stark difference between the Flynn case and Sussman’s. Flynn WAIVED his right to a trial by jury AND he pled guilty twice in front of a judge. This is what Flynn agreed to,
“ Your client understands that by pleading guilty in this case your client agrees to waive certain rights afforded by the Constitution of the UnitedStates and/or by statute or rule.”
Plead guilty twice! Wow. Why would someone ever have to plead guilty twice? Was the first time not good enough? Maybe it had something to do with Judge Contreras being forced to recuse himself after it was discovered that he’s friends with Strzok and that Lisa Page and Strzok were trying to meet with him under the guise of a cocktail party. LOL.
There is no need to argue with a moron.
You think an excellent textbook doesn’t have to be accurate. You are a fool.
S. Meyer, I wouldn’t be calling others a moron when you believe accuracy and excellent are synonymous.
There is a bit of deception with the statement “Flynn pled guilty twice” There was delays in Sentencing per Judge Sullivan, and the prosecution. Also Sullivan refused to take the Govt recommendation of no time in jail. Then Flynn changed lawyers and Powell demanded Brady material the govt withheld from defense.
But it is not accurated to say Flynn pled guilty twice, and ignore the facts leading up to the Govt Dropping the case, and Sullivan throwing a temper tantrum.
Judge Rudolph Contreras was initially assigned to the case, and he accepted the plea bargain between Flynn and Special Counsel Robert Mueller in December 2017. One week later, Judge Contreras recused himself, and the case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Sentencing was postponed several times to allow for cooperation with the Special Counsel investigation. In a sentencing hearing in December 2018, Flynn reiterated his guilty plea before Judge Sullivan, who postponed sentencing again.
In June 2019, Flynn fired his initial counsel from the firm Covington and Burling and hired Sidney Powell. Powell moved to compel production of additional Brady material and newly discovered evidence in October 2019, which was denied by Sullivan in December 2019. Flynn then moved to withdraw his guilty plea in January 2020, claiming that the government had acted in bad faith and breached the plea agreement.
As usual your article reminds me of one of those old Conspiracy maps right wing conspiracy theorists used to put up and Stewart and Colbert used to lampoon. On the one hand hilarious and on the other hand dangerous codswallop. Not surprising that you are now on that band wagon. Trump had secret servers and used a “private phone” and his own son bragged about their money connection with the Russians. No theories, no constructs but real facts.
This idea that no Dems ever criticized HILLARY is clearly false. Some democrats attacked her unmercifully. Give it a rest Prof.
Anything Turley can spin to distract away from what Turley does not want the Trump cult to read is fine with Turley.
Jan 4, 2017 FBI agents inform Comey they have found zero *derogatory infomation on Trump, and communication the FBI has with the IC, confirms the IC has no derogatory information.
Jan 5, 2017 Brennen briefs Obama, Biden, Susan Rice, Comey, etal. Russia intell has picked up communications, Clinton is launching a operation to created the lies tying Trump to Russia. The United States learned this from the Russian intelligence they intercepted. The plan is the brain child of Clinton Foreign Aide Staffer, Jake Sullivan. Sullivan currently serves as Biden’s National Security Advisor.
*derogatory informantion<<< important to understand this was all hidden as a counter intelligence investigation. Designed to subvert the rule of law, and icky things like getting criminal warrants, which require a named crime and probable cause. Derogatory information, replaces, evidence of crime.
LOL that you think on “Jan 5, 2017 Brennen briefs Obama, Biden, Susan Rice, Comey, etal. Russia intell has picked up communications, Clinton is launching a operation to created the lies tying Trump to Russia.”
The Clinton campaign was behind almost everything, as were those working around her.
This was a scam where highly placed people in our IC aided it for pure political reasons.
Anonymous twists and turns but gets nowhere.
You’re the “moron” and “fool” that you accuse others of being.
2017 was after the election!
2017 was after the election!
Yep, you are a sharp one aren’t you.
Iowan2……I believe it was Jake Sullivan, too…..but do we have definite proof, or did I miss it?
“Several sources close the story have confirmed”
The CIA also repeated directly to the FBI — Comey and Strozk — their warning about the Clinton campaign in early September 2016. The FBI at its highest levels had clear evidence of the campaign’s efforts to dirty up Trump when they got the Steele dossier and Sussman’s information. Did it investigate in detail the source of these false narratives in the light of the CIA’s warning? No, it did not.
It learned in one day that the Sussman information was false, and obviously so. Did they investigate where this false information came from? No.
They had not verified anything in the Steele dossier when they used it in the FISA warrant in September/October 2016. In December 2016 they were told by the CIA that it might contain Russian disinformation. In January 2017 they learned from Danchenko that it’s sources were rubbish. Did they investigate where this trash came from? No. Instead they repeatedly renewed the warrant, and Comey publicly stated that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for collusion. This investigation then was taken over by the Special Counsel.
The collusion hoax was invented by the Clinton campaign (most likely Jake Sullivan, Clinton herself and Elias), was amplified by the media and then investigated for years by a politically motivated FBI leadership and Special Counsel, to prevent Trump’s election and then to disrupt and possibly end the Trump presidency. The senior leadership of this conspiracy will not be brought to justice, but at least Durham’s prosecutions of Sussman and Danchenko are doing something to reveal what happened.
“Comey publicly stated that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for collusion.”
Yup, more than once, Comey said things publicly that he should not have, including the fact that they were investigating Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server and reopening that investigation later. On the flip side, the FBI tried to quash some public reporting, including early reporting on the Alfa Bank allegations.
Comey’s inappropriate public statements about the Clinton investigation — especially the reopening so close to the election — may have thrown the 2016 election to Trump.
As for “The collusion hoax,” there was no “hoax.” Trump publicly called for Russia to carry out crime on his behalf, Manafort colluded with Kilimnik, and Stone colluded with Guccifer 2.
” that he should not have, including the fact that they were investigating Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server “
He should have investigated that problem earlier, and should have been less willing to trust Hillary Clinton and her team for anything. He is the FBI, right?
Since both the Steele dossier and the Alfa/Trump narrative were invented by Clinton campaign operatives and were quickly shown to be full of falsehoods, “hoax” is an appropriate term.
Mueller did not find that any communications between Manafort and Killimnick or Stone and Guccifer 2 demonstrated collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Again: Trump publicly called for Russia to carry out crime on his behalf, Manafort colluded with Kilimnik, and Stone colluded with Guccifer 2. That was not a hoax.
You’re mistaken that “Mueller did not find that any communications between Manafort and Killimnick or Stone and Guccifer 2 demonstrated collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Mueller VERY explicitly stated that he was not investigating “collusion” (e.g., “In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” … collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”). Mueller concluded that he did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of *conspiracy* but he absolutely presented evidence of collusion.
“Mueller concluded that he did not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of *conspiracy* but he absolutely presented evidence of collusion.”
The fact that Turley knows this as well yet claims that Mueller established no Russian collusion is reprehensible. I am beginning to have my doubts about the bona fides of the professor. Again, he cannot be forced to clarify his erroneous insinuations because he is not willing to be questioned on the matter. He is ensconced in the safe space of Fox News.
You claim that Mueller was not investigating collusion but then you claim that Mueller proved that Trump colluded with the Russians. Which is it? Please provide the quote from the Mueller report that states that Trump or someone from his campaign ‘colluded’ with Russia.
Its OK precedent says it is OK for Democrats to commit crimes
When will Democrat voters get buyers remorse? $10 Gas, Dictatorship, outlawing of cars, Starbucks $10, 90% of America on Food stamps?
Democrats are pushing for a Communist State…everyone can see that! They put forward utter incapables….Eric Adams, Stacy Abrahams, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, etc and “voters” vote for them?
Sadly Democrats (media, DOJ, FBI, Congress, etc) won’t admit any of the thousands of crimes they are committing!
Inadvertently? The crimes of Democrats across government and the world are obvious for all to see…Russian Hoax, Bidens and democrats conspiracy to sell the US Government for family and friends, etc.
Democrats are after the MONEY and the media and government are helping them to obtain the power to get it! From fraud book deals to Dark Money! Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Soros, etc funding elections in Democrats areas….the Quest for TOTAL POWER is almost realized!
Much Worse than the Clintons. – it shows the total corruption of the Democrats against our Constitution. Those that steal from the poor and enrich themselves from our enemies need to pay with their freedom.
“It was Washington’s worst-kept but least-acknowledged secret.”
Actually, this may more accurately be your role as a Republican operative, Jon.
As far as trump’s collusion with Russia, everyone knows it was a reality. They also know he pissed in that bed. After Stormy detailed trump having her spank him with that rolled magazine, does anyone actually doubt this?
HRC just took that Republican generated oppo research and expanded on it after the R’s couldn’t take trump down with it in the ’16 primary. I just think you guys have to give up on the idea that HRC would do anything to hide her using a private email server. She got the idea from Colin Powell when he pointed out .gov addresses were notoriously hacked on a regular basis. Add to that, nearly the entire trump administration did the same. Just because Spanky went low tech and tore up, shredded and flushed actual physical documents before taking cases of a bunch more of them to Mar a Lago doesn’t excuse him from his digital incompetence.
eb, your heart isnt in your trolling today. give up the lies. The truth is already beyond dispute.
The truth is, indeed, already beyond dispute. Which makes me wonder why you can’t see it?
“The campaign then pushed these unfounded claims to the media and the FBI.”
Not unlike Turley’s Fox News’ pushing Trump’s Big Lie to its viewers for which it is being sued for defamation because the claims were either disinformation or otherwise unfounded.
That being said, I want to be clear that I am NOT unpersuadable that Hillary, et.al., are as malevolent as Turley would have us believe. Turley, however, cautioned against rushing to judgment in Trump’s first impeachment. He argued for my depositions of material witnesses. Accordingly, I’ll reserve judgment until more evidence is obtained. After all, I have yet to read the arguments on the other side. Uncharacteristically, Turley is not presenting both sides in the case as a fair-minded impartial legal analyst should. Moreover, just like Turley questions the impartiality of the jurors who contributed to Hillary’s campaign, his own impartiality is open to question given that he is on the take at Fox News.
“more depositions” not “my depositions”
Tie the Mook admission, with the knowledge of Brennen briefing Obama, Comey, Susan Rice and a host of others, the IC knew of Clintions plans of creating the lie tying Trump to Russiai. Despite that knowledge, President Obama himself green lighted the spying on the Trump campaign and Transition Team.
So much for peaceful transmission of power by a president always riding the high horse of ethics.
I think you meant to say ‘peaceful transition’ of power. Could be wrong though, maybe you meant to sport your authoritarian coat all out in public and everything.
Guess Mook is no Brando fan. Serves him right for not watching the classics like “On the Waterfront”:
Do you smell and imminent Arkancide?
Lefty TDS is so strong that they celebrate the dirty tricks on Trump, never realizing that it is our system that suffered.
Or perhaps they think that hurting the country is OK if Trump also suffered.
do you see any Democrat leader or high ranking DOJ, FBI, Intel, CDC, FDA, etc official getting poorer?
Sussmann will skate. Hillary will skate. The Deep State is deep.
“Cold, too” to resurrect an old joke. Come to think of it ….
Not wearing your Depends today?
I agree. Unfortunately, this is only going to make the distrust of our institutions WORSE. Who is ever going to trust our government and their intel agencies again, when they lied, they spied and they walk, whilst American citizens are rotting away in a DC gulag because they peacefully protested the lies that are going to take America down.
The Constitution was written to PROTECT people from Government….that is why Democrats Ignore it!
List of Constitutional Amendments Democrats are against 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Comments are closed.