FBI Agent: Comey and Other Leadership Were “Fired Up” to Pursue the False Alfa Bank Claims

FBI leadership, including then-Director James Comey, was “fired up” about the alleged secret communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank. The question is why Comey and others were so reportedly eager given the lack of foundation for the false claim — a record that even the researchers told the Clinton campaign could be mocked as utterly unsupported. Yet, as with the Steele dossier claims (funded and spread by the Clinton campaign) there was a strikingly receptive audience for such claims at the top of the FBI.

The new disclosure came with the testimony of the supervisory agent for the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe (“Crossfire Hurricane”) Joe Pientka. He sent a note to FBI Special Agent Curtis Heide that stated “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server,” Pientka messaged Heide. “Did you guys open a case? Reach out and put tools on?”

The description of the eagerness of Comey and others only magnified concerns over the alleged bias or the predisposition of the agency on the investigation of Trump and his campaign. It is particularly striking in an allegation that was viewed as unsupported even by the researchers and quickly dismissed by the government as baseless.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed “tech executive” allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed “university researchers” who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.” The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely “was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but ‘a red herring,’” according to the indictment.

“Researcher-1” repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, “How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

The alleged response from Comey and the FBI leadership would seem to confirm the view of campaign associates that they only needed a “useful narrative” to achieve their purposes. It only took an unsupported, implausible theory to get Comey and his top aides “fired up.”

200 thoughts on “FBI Agent: Comey and Other Leadership Were “Fired Up” to Pursue the False Alfa Bank Claims”

  1. Alternate Electors Subject Of Grand Jury

    The Justice Department has stepped up its criminal investigation into the creation of alternate slates of pro-Trump electors seeking to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 election, with a particular focus on a team of lawyers that worked on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

    A federal grand jury in Washington has started issuing subpoenas in recent weeks to people linked to the alternate elector plan, requesting information about several lawyers including Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and one of his chief legal advisers, John Eastman, one of the people said.

    The subpoenas also seek information on other pro-Trump lawyers like Jenna Ellis, who worked with Mr. Giuliani, and Kenneth Chesebro, who wrote memos supporting the elector scheme in the weeks after the election.

    A top Justice Department official acknowledged in January that prosecutors were trying to determine whether any crimes were committed in the scheme.

    Under the plan, election officials in seven key swing states put forward formal lists of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College on the grounds that the states would be shown to have swung in favor of Mr. Trump once their claims of widespread election fraud had been accepted. Those claims were baseless, and all seven states were awarded to Mr. Biden.

    It is a federal crime to knowingly submit false statements to a federal agency or agent for an undue end. The alternate elector slates were filed with a handful of government bodies, including the National Archives.

    The focus on the alternate electors is only one of the efforts by the Justice Department to broaden its vast investigation of hundreds of rioters who broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Edited From

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/pro-trump-lawyers-elector-scheme.html

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    This alternate electors scheme is certainly a more serious matter than the Michael Sussman case. Even if Republicans take Congress, in November, the grand jury looking at alternate electors could be the train that keeps going.

    1. Let’s put this in context… the second ‘scheme’ (Alt. Electors) is NOT ‘a more serious matter’ because the first ‘scheme’ (Sussman) had the impact of sucking energy every day for 4 years from Trump’s Presidency, enough that it impacted his re-election… i.e., the first scheme was in large measure responsible for the second scheme.. i.e., Had the first scheme never happened, there would have been no second scheme….

    2. “Alternate Electors Subject Of Grand Jury”

      Deflect and hijack — a shopworn technique used by manipulators.

      Aggressively changing the topic — a symptom of dishonesty.

    3. 2000 Mules shows the real story. Ballot trafficking caused Biden to win. If those, almost certain ballots, were eliminated (leaving a lot more to exclude), Biden would have lost the Presidency.

      Democrats committed fraud proven in 2000 Mules. Did you see the movie? Can you make an argument that ballot trafficking didn’t occur?

    4. NO it is not, it is also not inside the domain of the DOJ.

      The constitution leaves electors up tot he states.

      Again this has occurred before – it is perfectly legal.

      Hillary tried to persuade electors to change their votes – there was no DOJ investigation of that.
      Because it is legal.

  2. The Sussman jury is stacked with Democrat fanboys because Judge Cooper rigged the outcome. Sussman could murder a Republican in broad daylight, and this jury will not convict.

    And when they don’t convict, they’ll be telling every ruthless Democrat in the District of Corruption that Democrats can march into the Justice Department with bogus claims and ulterior motives, and D.C. juries will never hold them accountable. If this crime was perpetrated by GOP operatives, I can assure you, there would be convictions and rightly so.

    D.C. should change its name to Dodge City. Washington is a lawless, free-fire zone where dirty tricks by government officers and their country-club buddies at the DNC are tolerated and even encouraged.

    Independents didn’t vote for this, and they can go a long way to fix it in November.

      1. You can’t handle the truth. This is not for you. It’s for those who aren’t committed to the lie:
        Joffe abused his access privilege to internet traffic to gather Alfa traffic so that he could claim Russian collusion by Trump.
        Joffe informed Sussman of his findings, even though Joffe’s own experts expressed strong doubts about the findings.
        Sussman, being politically corrupt and having a conflict of interest, was happy to pretend he believed Joffe.
        Hillary was mired in her server scandal, so she ok’ed telling the media about Alfa to change the subject.
        The NYT would not print the Alfa claims pushed by Hillary’s campaign without a federal investigation because…
        Even the NYT knows you can’t trust opposition research.
        So Sussman went to James Baker at the FBI and pushed him to accept the Alfa findings and to start an FBI investigation.
        Sussman was a paid attorney for Hillary’s campaign but explicitly told Baker that he had no political involvement because…
        Sussman knew that Baker would likely refuse the information if Sussman admitted he and his source (Joffe) worked for Hillary’s campaign.
        That was the crime and it was deliberate and malicious.
        And James Baker, being a corrupt official, was happy to take Sussman at his word so he could persecute Trump.
        The news of the FBI investigation was soon leaked by corrupt officials.
        Thus, the NYT reported Alfa Bank investigation as bombshell proof of Trump’s Russia collusion, and yet ten years later…
        Trump has not even been indicted for anything related to Alfa Bank. It was all bogus opposition research.
        None of these clowns expected Hillary to lose, and they expected to be promoted by Hillary for this mischief.
        Imagine their shock in November of 2016 when their immunity evaporated.
        Strozk’s “insurance policy” was framing Trump to protect criminals like Sussman.

        1. Diogenes, most of what you wrote is non-responsive to the question “What are you taking as evidence that Sussmann committed the alleged crime?”

          You say that “Sussman … explicitly told Baker that he had no political involvement.” But Baker did not testify to that, and Durham has not presented evidence of that. Perhaps you’re confusing what Sussmann texted the day before (which is *not* part of what Sussmann was indicted for) and what Sussmann said to Baker at the meeting (which is what Sussmann was indicted for).

          Again: I’m asking about the evidence presented at trial and about the alleged crime (the false statement charge that Sussmann was indicted for).

          I handle the truth just fine. I’m asking about the details because I care about the truth.

          1. Anonymous, you are the partisan’s partisan. When the shoe is on the other foot, Trump is guilty without another thought. But Sussman is a different story because you want him to be innocent. Your criteria require a confession because there is always a reason why good evidence can have some questions attached.

            If in a crime The DNA matches, you have your chimera defense. There is no end with people like you. However, 100% proof is not what convicts people. There is a jury and in this case, a jury picked from a city that is almost all favorable to the Democrat position. Sussman can be guilty but found innocent. That is probably what will happen. However, even after the trial and all the information released about Alpha Bank some of those jury members would likely find trump guilty of a hoax contributed to by the one they found not guilty.

            Your credibility diminishes as your hypocricy rises. Both have reached near flat levels of growth. We all know that and recognize it whenever you speak, so whatever impact you could have had is lost, buried in a lot of nonsense.

          2. Anonymous: “You say that ‘Sussman … explicitly told Baker that he had no political involvement.’ But Baker did not testify to that, and Durham has not presented evidence of that.”

            Here is the evidence presented at trial:

            https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/fbi-official-james-baker-testifies-michael-sussman-lied/

            The gist of the article is that the FBI’s former general counsel, James Baker, testified under oath in federal court that Sussmann requested a meeting to provide proof of Trump’s Russian collusion. Sussmann claimed he did so solely “as a good citizen,” not on behalf of any client, in other words, he wasn’t acting on behalf of a political campaign (no political involvement is a reasonable characterization on my part). Sussmann made the claim in a text message to Baker the night before, and Baker testified that he was “100% confident” Sussmann had repeated the disclaimer at the beginning of their meeting. Special Counsel John Durham’s team showed the jury that Sussmann had actually billed the Clinton campaign for that meeting.

            You’re trying to confuse people by nitpicking about words, and your nitpicking is wrong anyway.

            1. Now you might still counter that “no political involvement” is too broad. My context was reasonably clear, but let’s assume I was too broad. I could rephrase it as Sussman claimed “political motivation was not the reason” for his meeting with Baker. That characterization is indisputable from Sussman’s own text message and Baker’s testimony.

              You might further counter that Sussman was working for Hillary but his motivation for that meeting with Baker was purely non-political. And yet, SUSSMAN BILLED HILLARY’S CAMPAIGN FOR THAT MEETING. That’s in the court record, too.

              Your only defense at this point is that Sussman overbilled for the meeting to or that the prosecution is misrepresenting the billing. Again, based on the context of Sussman’s actions and statements, any reasonable person would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussman misled the FBI so he could get the story leaked and published, but Cooper stacked the jury with unreasonable people (trolls like you), so there will be no accounting for Sussman’s crime.

              Again, this explanation is for the record. For others who do care about the truth. Not you.

  3. Where one nation is at liberty to turn another nation into a moonscape…if that’s the kind of world you want to live in, then there’s something wrong with you.

  4. Who declared war on whom is irrelavant. The point is that something bad was happening and it needed to stop, and the war was brought to an end by massive bombing campaigns, and it’s not false to say this.

  5. Replacement theory is stupid. There are minorities that are very good to white people. I should know because I have been the recipient of their good deeds.

    1. “It’s the [law], stupid!”

      – James Carville
      _____________

      Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)

      United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      The Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect upon the issuance of the unconstitutional emancipation proclamation in 1863.

      As a matter of fact, everything Abraham Lincoln did was unconstitutional and remains illicit and illegitimate to this day; secession was completely constitutional and could not have been denied by Lincoln.

      The Supreme Court found Roe v Wade unconstitutional after 50 years.

      The Supreme Court corrected its substantial, significant and gross error.

      The Supreme Court must now find Lincoln unconstitutional or the Supreme Court will have lost its last scintilla of credibility.

  6. The war will not stop until Russia is dealt more punishing blows, just as was done to Germany and Japan.
    Unless this is done, unless there is a will to do this, then expect this war to go on indefinitely and perpetually.

  7. If Russia is afraid to attack NATO countries, then why not make Ukraine a NATO country? Doing so should instantly stop the war. They do want the war to stop, don’t they?

    1. Start with the fact that Ukraine has an entire military Battalion that is Nazi, the Azov Battalion, which is illegal in the EA. So NATO cannot legally allow Ukraine to join the UN.

      See Oliver Stone’s movie Ukraine On Fire.

  8. Of course. Hilary was leading in the polls. If they did her bidding they go to the top of the list for the most desired appointments in the new administration. Then they had their Oh s— moment and tried to take down a duly elected President. Truly the crime of the century and likely only those like Sussman will have any consequences not the ones behind it.

  9. Trump Unbothered By Chants To Hang Pence

    Shortly after hundreds of rioters at the Capitol started chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” on Jan. 6, 2021, the White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, left the dining room off the Oval Office, walked into his own office and told colleagues that President Donald J. Trump was complaining that the vice president was being whisked to safety.

    Mr. Meadows, according to an account provided to the House committee investigating Jan. 6, then told the colleagues that Mr. Trump had said something to the effect of, maybe Mr. Pence should be hung.

    It is not clear what tone Mr. Trump was said to have used. But the reported remark was further evidence of how extreme the rupture between the president and his vice president had become, and of how Mr. Trump not only failed to take action to call off the rioters but appeared to identify with their sentiments about Mr. Pence — whom he had unsuccessfully pressured to block certification of the Electoral College results that day — as a reflection of his own frustration at being unable to reverse his loss.

    The account of Mr. Trump’s comment was initially provided to the House committee by at least one witness, according to two people briefed on their work, as the panel develops a timeline of what the president was doing during the riot.

    Another witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Mr. Meadows who was present in his office when he recounted Mr. Trump’s remarks, was asked by the committee about the account and confirmed it, according to the people familiar with the panel’s work. It was not immediately clear how much detailed information Ms. Hutchinson provided. She has cooperated with the committee in three separate interviews after receiving a subpoena.

    Edited From:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/trump-pence-jan-6.html
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Professor Turley would have us think that ‘poor Donald Trump’ was victimized by Hillary. Yet this same Donald Trump didn’t honestly seem to care when January 6th rioters were chanting “Hang Mike Pence”. This illustrates the basic problem with John Durham’s investigation: ‘At the end of the day Donald Trump is NOT a sympathetic figure’.

    1. “according to the people familiar with the panel’s work. It was not immediately clear how much detailed information Ms. Hutchinson provided”

      THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN ON TRUMP!!!!!

      The constitution could not be reached for comment as to what exactly this information adds to congresses ability to draft legislation. (I would always consult an aide the the Chief of Staff.

      Getting back to reality.

      Leaking little bits of testimony to the media is all the proof needed, the committee is nothing but political mudslinging for the 2022 midterm elections. Democrats are forced to distract from the results of their actions.

      1. ANON He just slamdunker your snowflake arse and you talking fairytales. Every single issue against DT you dems have pressed and pressured have fallen. That includes the 1-06-2021 insurrection crock.

        1. Lighteredknot says:

          “That includes the 1-06-2021 insurrection crock.”

          You do realize that NeverTrumper Turley called upon Congress to censure Trump for 1-06-2021:

          “Many of us have denounced Trump’s speech as reckless and wrong. Indeed, I was tweeting my objections to the speech as it was being given. Moreover, I opposed the congressional challenges to the electoral votes from the outset, rejected Trump’s claim that the electoral votes could be “sent back,” and praised Vice President Pence for defying Trump. Yet, none of this is license for Congress to rampage through the Constitution with the same abandon as last week’s rioters did in the Capitol.”
          ….

          “Such a joint statement of condemnation by the two houses could be based on three grounds.

          First, Trump — as well as his son, Donald Jr., and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani — whipped the Jan. 6 crowd into a frenzy before the rioting in the Capitol.”
          ….

          “Second, Trump repeated clearly false statements about the constitutional process and made the unconscionable demand that Pence should usurp that process by “sending back” electoral votes.”
          ….

          “Third, Trump was conspicuously silent as this riot engulfed the Congress. It was not until the next day that he clearly denounced all of the violence and called for the prosecution of those responsible. On the day in question, he gave a widely ridiculed statement thanking his supporters and saying he understood their anger. It may not have been criminal incitement — but it was an outrageous failure to denounce the violence, immediately and unequivocally.”

          https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/533693-the-case-for-censuring-trump/

          Some “crock”…

          1. Jeff: You say; ” It may not have been criminal incitement — but it was an outrageous failure to denounce the violence, immediately and unequivocally.” Here Your adamance is equivocating and rightly so.
            https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/533693-the-case-for-censuring-trump/
            When Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, et als stood on the House floor and sometimes in the Well of the House and said ” Trump committed Russia collusion” and went forward with Impeachment utilizing a Crock of lies that Hillary, DNC, FBI, et als help concoct, and pay for, and Sussman lied to FBI, FISA Court, for it ; what is that? I would say that is a hell of a lot more demanding judical judgment that just a censure. Would that be sedition?

            1. Turley said:

              “It may not have been criminal incitement — but it was an outrageous failure to denounce the violence, immediately and unequivocally.”

              Not me. If ever Turley calls for Hillary, the DNC, and the FBI to be tried for sedition, you will have your answer.

              I would not hold your breath!

    2. Dumbest damn reply yet. So because Trump is not a sympathetic character, Hillary, DNC, FBI and other agencies can attempt to carry out a coup to get rid of the elected President of the USA? Come on man!

  10. I wonder if Turley will give a day-by-day account of the upcoming testimony of the January 6th hearings. You can bet good money that Fox will ignore the proceedings not unlike how the MSM generally dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop. The question is whether Turley will follow suit or rather try to discredit the testimony as much as he can. He has already distanced himself from the Fox narrative by having called for Trump’s Congressional censure. He was not invited on Fox to share THAT opinion.

    Funny…

    1. JeffSilberman, you can bet your bottom dollar that Fox News will report on the Jan 6 proceeding. Their viewpoint may be different than yours but you shouldn’t bet the farm that Fox won’t be there. I do however agree with you that the MSM, The New York Times and The Washington Post haven’t spent ten dollars worth of time or ink covering the Sussmann trial. On an earlier discussion between we two I provide further evidence that Joffe did plead the fifth. If providing the words right from Joffe’s mouth Isn’t enough what else is there left to say. https://twitter.com/FOOL_NELSON/status/1497216080007217152/photo/4.

      1. TiT,

        You are confusing me with someone else because I did not discuss with you Joffre.

        If Hannity, Carlson, or Ingraham mention the Jan 6 hearings, you can bet your last dollar that they will spread the usual false narratives of “witch-hunt,” “Deep State,” “hoax,” etc.

        It’s true that MSNBC prime time has not covered the Sussman trial. I don’t fault Turley’s criticizing the MSM’s silence. However, Turley will not criticize Fox for ignoring the many Jan 6 revelations to date since it undermines its narrative. Just today, the NYT reports that Trump reacted approvingly to the Jan 6 chants about hanging Pence.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/us/politics/trump-pence-jan-6.html

        The Fox Primetime hosts and Turley certainly will ignore that bombshell report. Each side panders to their own. It is hypocritical of Turley to pretend that Fox is any better.

        1. However, Turley will not criticize Fox for ignoring the many Jan 6 revelations
          I see our resident retard is still making up lies about our host.

          There have been zero revelations. No report has been released.

    2. Shall America juxtapose the Obama Coup D’etat in America, an insidious and corrupt effort to nullify the Constitution, challenge the authority of the President of the United States, and overthrow a duly elected government, with a simple protest (distinctly not insurrection which must, by definition, be armed)?

      Ironically, the corrupt American judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, has presided over precisely that since 1860 and 1864 when Karl Marx sent a letter of congratulation and commendation to Abraham Lincoln, praising his efforts to initiate “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world…,” the “Reconstruction Amendments” doing exactly that a short time later, initiating the incremental implementation of the principles of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto (Why isn’t Marx’s letter prominently displayed at the Lincoln Memorial?).

      https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

    3. Heckuva job you’re doin’ there Darren. Don’t worry, I’m not going to shame you by emailing Turley so that he can do your job for you.

      Your repeated refusal to block this individual for violating the civility code gives me the the distinct feeling that you are hoping that I accept his invitation to jump. You are not alone too.

      1. Jeff, I’ve written Turley about it again.

        It’s not OK for someone to be encouraging another person to commit suicide.

        1. Anonymous,

          Pray tell: did Turley acknowledge receipt of your prior email? If so, what did he indicate?

          It’s better that you pursue this since apparently you have established a rapport with Turley which I lack. Please keep the blog updated on Turley’s reaction to Darren’s refusal to enforce the Civility Rule.

          Thank you very much.

    4. Jeff: An attempted coup to remove DT doesn’t trouble you right? I would allege that the coup was known by Obama, Biden, DOJ, FBI, and on down. Susan Rice stated; Obama was to be kept in the loop and musrt do things by the book. I also realize said charge would place your thongs in a big wad.
      There truly is no rule of law in this land any more. The headmen just make charges and indictments on the items they chose to. The items they chose to ignore, they do so. FBI Agents acting in these regard seem to bother you none. : Here is the headline, yet you chose assiduously to simply rant against the Prof and Fox.
      Comey and Other Leadership Were “Fired Up” to Pursue the False Alfa Bank Claims

      1. Here is a headline which “seems to bother you none”:

        “Trump reacted with approval to ‘hang Mike Pence’ chants from rioters on January 6”

        https://apple.news/AA2Qpc5iCQ4qtiuD_Oj5ozA

        When you are “troubled” by the Trumpist insurrection and the Big Lie to justify it, I’ll consider your claim that the Deep State engaged in a coup d’etat.

        Until then, go fish.

        1. No There is no DT insurrection anymore than Al Gore stopping the election process in 2000. The fat lady has not sang on what you term the big lie. Yo just can not contain your elitest opinions can you? I will go fish as you are sucking eggs or whatever.

    5. It should be ignored. Its a cherry picked committee made in violation of house rules. Plus, they have already been caught a couple times tampering with evidence.

  11. I’m not an attorney but I truly hope President Trump and anyone they maligned and hurt put a dent in their pockets as they did Gen. Flynn.

    This stopped being a election dirty trick the day the President was sworn to office, thereafter it became a conspiracy to remove and destroy a legally elected President. They (Shifty and company) knew this was all a lie but they continued to lied to all Americans for 4 years.

    1. OT

      How did the liberal RINOs manipulate the Georgia Governor’s election against conservatives and Trump? The Deep Deep State RINOs, Liz Cheney, Bush, Pence, Romney, Kemp et al. have proven their resiliency. As long as the corrupt judicial branch holds dominion, the Constitution and Americans will continue to lose. It makes no sense to go liberal RINO to beat liberal communist Stacy Abrams – that’s the same as losing.
      ____________

      DEMOCRATS CAN VOTE IN REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

      The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

      “The Jolt: Data shows thousands of Democrats voting in GOP primary”

      Are a significant number of Georgia Democrats part of the surge of voters casting ballots in GOP primaries? Early data suggests that could be the case. AJC election guru Mark Niesse crunched the numbers and determined about 7% of Georgia voters who have cast GOP ballots so far previously pulled a Democratic ballot two years ago. That’s about 16,000 voters of the roughly 237,000 who voted in the Republican primary. Since Georgia is an open primary state – meaning voters can choose whichever party’s ballot they want – crossing party lines to cast a primary vote is not a new phenomenon. But it could factor in tight races on May 24. Some Democrats might vote strategically to help nominate a Republican they see as more vulnerable in November. Others may like Republican candidates or want to punish David Perdue and other candidates backed by former President Donald Trump. “Democrats that want to send a clear message to David Perdue and Donald Trump are voting against all of Trump’s endorsements,” said Larry Weiner, a Democrat who said he and several friends voted in the GOP primary. “Come November, we vote for Democrats.”

  12. Russian generals shouldn’t mind it if Ukraine or NATO bombs the Kremlin, because such a bombing would make it that much easier for the generals to stage a coup against Putin.

  13. Turley Overstates

    Pientka’s Testimony Was Contradicted

    Not Everyone Was ‘Fired Up’

    An FBI agent involved in the investigation of links between Donald Trump and Russia told a colleague weeks before the 2016 election that top FBI brass were “fired up” about since-discredited allegations of a secret communications channel between Trump and a Russian bank with close ties to Vladimir Putin.

    “People on 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server,” FBI agent Joseph Pientka wrote in an internal instant message to another agent working on the issue.

    But Pientka’s comment, revealed in courtroom testimony Monday, was part of a conflicting narrative presented to jurors about the secrecy and urgency with which the FBI treated allegations related to the Putin-linked Alfa Bank. Those claims arrived at the bureau via Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity attorney who represented the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.

    Despite Pientka’s messages, other witnesses described the bureau’s reaction to the Alfa Bank tip as relatively modest — a limited offshoot of a much broader and more urgent investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and any evidence of the Trump campaign’s involvement.

    Indeed, current and former FBI witnesses seemed to have hazy memories of aspects of the Alfa Bank episode and indicated their recollections were heavily influenced by notes, emails and messages they exchanged at the time, which have been unearthed by Durham’s team.

    Jurors saw an internal FBI intelligence report Monday that indicated the FBI viewed Alfa Bank as closely connected to Putin.

    “As of 1998, Putin was on Alfa Bank’s payroll,” the report said, in addition to detailing other alleged links between the bank, its owners and Putin.

    Edited From:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/23/fbi-trump-russia-secret-server-claims-00034434

    1. “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”

      – Bill Priestap

    2. Anomaly,

      “Those claims arrived at the bureau via Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity attorney who represented the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign.”

      Did Politico say the quiet part out loud?

  14. I will accept a jury’s *guilty* verdict, but I get a sense the lot of you Trumpists won’t accept a *not guilty.* I hate to think that Turley won’t. The jurors are in a better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses since they can observe their testimony.

    I do hope that Turley will provide a day-by-day account of the upcoming Smartmatic and Dominion defamation trials against his Fox News. I think it is fair to say that the Fox Primetime hosts were similarly “fired up” to believe the claim that the election was stolen despite there being no foundation for it.

  15. GUILTY AS CHARGED – FIXING BY VENUE

    This manifestly guilty Clinton operative, Sussmann, cannot be found innocent by the corrupt judicial branch through its corrupt manipulation of venue.

    America can’t do another OJ, JFK, RFK or MLK regarding an issue of this import and magnitude.

    “Legislating from the bench.”

    The corrupt judicial branch must be stopped from fixing this verdict by venue.

    The American Founders, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could not get a “fair trial” in Washington, District of Corruption.

  16. “People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”

    – Bill Priestap

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

    – Barack Obama
    ______________

    “We will stop him.”

    – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
    ___________________________________

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

    – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
    _________________________________

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

    – Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page

    1. Geo add Susan Rice said; to keep Obama in the loop and do things by the book. A big WAG would allegedly be that meant utilize the DOJ, AG, FBI, CIA, and NSA, et als, to stop and or then remove DT? Has anyone ascertained the policy numbers (names) of all those Insurance Policies?

  18. “Sussmann bought and billed the campaign for two flash drives on which he stored data that he presented to the bureau, a prosecution witness testified Wednesday.”

    1. Whoever you’re quoting is misrepresenting what the witness said.

      The jury was shown a Staples receipt and expense records showing Sussmann billed Clinton campaign for the purchase of several (more than 2) flash drives on Sept. 13.

      Sussmann met with Baker on 9/19, almost a week later.

      The witness did not tie the flash drives purchased on 9/13 for HFA to the flash drives given to Baker on 9/19, only said that Sussmann bought and expensed flash drives on 9/13 to HFA.

      1. “The jury was shown a Staples receipt and expense records showing Sussmann billed Clinton campaign for the purchase of several (more than 2) flash drives on Sept. 13.”

        They are concerned with two flash drives containing Alfa-Bank claims.

        Do you have proof they were wrong? Why don’t you provide the witness’s entire statement regarding the flash drives, along with a link.

        1. It’s not my job to prove Durham wrong.

          It’s Durham’s job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury that Sussmann did what Durham alleges.

          If you want to read the witness’s entire statement, nothing is preventing you from paying for a transcript.

          1. You made a statement. It has been concluded by many on this blog that you are not credible, so when you make a comment in the fashion you did, one expects you to prove what you said. That is how one earns his credibility back. It is not important to me what you do for in the end the decision is not based on what we think. Even if Sussman is convicted he will not be penalized adequately.

Leave a Reply to lighteredknot Cancel reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: